Talk:2014 Gaza War

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close per three month moratorium on move discussions set at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 2#Requested move. Repeated move discussions in very close succession are disruptive. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Future date stamp to keep this from being archived for the duration of the moratorium. Advance Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of sources appear to be calling this a war by now, many by the term "Gaza War". There was a Gaza War in 2008, but perhaps we should name this article to something similar sooner or later. Here are some sources:

• The New York Times
• The Wall Street Journal
• CNN
• New York Post
• Gannett
• Haaretz
• USA Today

There's likely a lot more.--ɱ (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Conflict" is a serious understatement. But first you need to submit a formal move request.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the above is mainly just to draw people's attention to the necessity. I don't personally want to be active in such a move debate.--ɱ (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Would "Second Gaza War" be the likely title destination? Tandrum (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "Second Gaza War" is currently being used by sources. "2014 Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2014)" will probably be the likely titles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War (2014) – Per the above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead and background

The article is about the "Operation Protective Edge" (or whatever you prefer to call it, if you dislike the IDF name). Acting boldly, I have removed a big chunk of the lead, because it is hugely awkward, and properly refers to the background. Every one of the events in this chunk is mentioned in the background section. And the treatment of those things are much better in that section, instead of a litany of incidents in the lead with no logic for inclusion/exclusion. Already multiple battles are being fought on the this part of the lead including here, here, here, here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the circumstances of there being recurring, ongoing disagreement about what to include in the 'background' part in the lead (as recently as right now), and the lead being really long, your bold move of the information to the article body (which I polished up in these edits) was probably for the best. -sche (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:After our positive interchanges, I am somewhat disappointed that you continue to refer to this article as being about "Operation Protective Edge". The title shows that it clearly is not = "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". We need to achieve closure on this issue because it is leading to grossly inefficient editing by all concerned and a waste of individual time.

I have previously suggested that, if you want to preserve an article named "Operation Protective Edge" then I would fully support that. But then we must DO that, and move the bloated detail about "OPE" to its own page, replacing it with a synopsis in the 2014 overview. In a day or two I will propose a draft Background section that does not violate the subject matter of the current article.

@Erictheenquirer: As you can see on the top of the talk page (and I have also mentioned this in our earlier conversations), there is a 3-month moratorium on moves on this page, therefore, it has to stay with an unsatisfactory title. I did not move the article, but we are stuck with the title name, unless someone puts in a move review request. However even a casual glance at the article shows that 95% (if not higher) of the article is about "Operation Protective Edge". Everyone in this article has been editing as if this deals with "Operation Protective Edge", not the whole of 2014. Most of the issues were with the lead section, which I have trimmed massively. Right now, I do not see much confusion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:I accept that. Please see my conclusions at Talk: POV Tag Needed for Article Lead above, where I will continue the discussion.

@Somedifferentstuff: Could you elaborate on why you went back to the previous version? Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA section. Work out a consensual version

==Allegations of UN bias==

See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

During the present conflict, the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question. Critics allege that the agencies have lost their neutral standing and question their position as unbiased parties. The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict. Some critics contend that the UN agency lacks accountability and transparency with regards to the distribution and use of foreign funds in the Strip and the hiring of individuals associated with terrorist groups. Critics have also pointed to the three instances during the present conflict where missiles were discovered in UNRWA schools and the agency's subsequent handling of the weapons as casting a shadow over the organization's neutrality in the conflict. U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) called for an investigation into the UNRWA's role during the conflict; the U.S. government is UNRWA's leading source of funding. The UN agency OCHA has also been criticized following its publication of causalty figures; critics question the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports. Presently, Israel and the OCHA dispute the number of civilians killed during the conflict. The OCHA has reported that approximately 70% of Gazans killed were civilians, Israel disputes this and maintains that 45-55% were combatants. Critics also point to structural biases in the UN; Arab and Muslim countries number over 50, ensuring a broad coalition criticizing Israel.

• I can't imagine this given the bloated state of the article, running to more than two lines. We all know this is pol-spin crap, and has its due refutations also. But if Shrike wants it, then he should craft a succinct synthesis summing up the charges and rebuttals.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• This paragraph contains repetition of the rockets in the UNRWA facilities and the disputed civilian percentage. IMO both can be safely removed. Whatever remains belongs under "Alleged violations of IHL/Military use of UN facilities" instead of a separate section.- WarKosign (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• The first three sentences are vague, unreferenced (or in one case lightly-referenced), weaselly-worded aspersions like "Critics allege that..." (when, as noted above, "'Israeli commentators' is a far more specific label"). The sentence "Some critics contend that [...] associated with terrorist groups" may be worth keeping someplace, though I suspect that place is [[Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations]] and not this article. Everything from "Critics have also pointed..." to "... neutrality in the conflict" and everything from "The UN agency OCHA..." to "...45-55% were combatants" is duplication of content which is already present (and better-placed) elsewhere in the article, as WarKosign notes. And the bit about what two US senators think is undue (and, as was noted elsewhere on this talk page, probably just spin for domestic consumption) and should be removed like the Irish politician's views were removed some time ago. The last sentence, which suggests certain ethnic and religious groups are inherently biased, and nations where a majority of the population is of such ethnic or religious groups are therefore also inherently going to take certain stances, is problematic for the reasons noted a few sections up. -sche (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a future timestamp so this does not get archived. 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Indispensable section removed by Avaya1 without discussion. To be expanded.

Added to the main article with some expansions and changes like including Gazan tunnels inside this section

Gazan rockets Range of missiles launched from Gaza Strip The number of rockets used by Gazan militias vary in range, size and lethality. They include the M-302 which is Syrian made (based on a Chinese design), and the locally made M-75 which have the range to target Tel-Aviv. Other rockets include the Soviet Katyusha and Qassams. Hamas has also used a "crude, tactical" drone, reported to be Iranian-made and named "Ababil-1". Palestinian militant groups have also used anti-tank rockets and anti-tank mines against armoured personnel carriers. Lethality According to Theodore Postol, the vast majority of Gazan artillery rocket warheads contain 10- to 20-pound explosive loads. Postol states that these missiles are incapable of causing damage to well-sheltered people. Mark Perry states that "Hamas’ arsenal is considerably weaker today than it was in 2012" and that "Hamas’ Fajr-5 [long range rocket] guidance system was crude, at best, and its warhead nearly non-existent." Israel − IDF Artillery Corps fires 155 mm M-109 howitzer gun, 24 July 2014 Israel has used air, land and naval weaponry. The artillery includes Soltam M71 guns and U.S.-manufactured Paladin M109s (a 155-mm howitzer). The aerial weaponry includes drones and F-16 fighter jets. Drones are used to constantly monitor the Gaza strip. Israel's early warning sirens and extensive shelters have been an effective defense against Gazan rocketry. They are less effective against short-range mortars because of less time to react. References

I have added the military section to the main page. There have been some expansions. Also included tunnels inside the section. Kingsindian (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The lethality of rockets isn't really relevant to the article. I'm sure the families of those killed by rockets and those who live under constant rocket fire would disagree that they are "harmless". Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the section does not call them "harmless". Indeed, since 7 civilians have been killed, they're not harmless. The section only quotes two scholars describing the capabilities and the size of the warhead. One of them calls it "incapable of harming well-sheltered people". That is his judgement, properly attributed. If you have contrary information about the size of the warheads etc., you can add it. The section needs expansion. Kingsindian (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That is essentially what it is saying. That they are basically harmless. Also, it doesn't explain what "well-sheltered" exactly is. Is it a shelter that has a roof or is it a bomb shelter? If it's the latter, then that is the point of a bomb shelter. To shelter people against bombs. The bomb shelter is what saves lives. There's also the opinion that the Iranian Fajr-5's warhead is "basically non-existent". According to specifications, the Fajr-5 has a 150 - 200 kg warhead seen here and here. Unless Hamas purposely takes out the warhead (which I highly doubt), that is not "not-existent". Saying the type of warhead is perfectly fine. But the opinion of how lethal they are is just that, an opinion. I think the name of the section should be changed to "Rocket Specifications", and add things such as range of the rocket, speed of the rocket, size of the rocket, size of the warhead, etc. But the opinions of how lethal they are should be removed. Knightmare72589 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

3 points. I have changed section name to "Rocket specifications":

• As I already said, this section is about the military capabilities of either side. There is no implication that the suffering of either side is being minimized.
• Regarding Postol's comment, he explains what "well-sheltered" means in his article. He credits Israel's network of bomb-shelters with reducing the damage by the rockets.
• Regarding Mark Perry's comment, it is of course an opinion. It is an opinion of a noted military and intelligence specialist, and appears in the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, a very old and very respectable institution. As to the Fajr-5 warhead, if you read the piece, he mentions that Hamas had reduced rocket capability, and a lot of the Fajr-5 rockets were destroyed in the 2012 war by Israel. Also, Fajr-5 is very hard to maneuver. This is why the warhead was very reduced. Your links are from 2013, which is not looking at the capabilities of the rockets which were used in the conflict. Kingsindian (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Improving the "Alleged violations of international humanitarian law" section

I see the following problems and would like to hear objections to the changes I intent to make before I proceed. The main problem is that titles of the violations do not correlate directly to International humanitarian law. Are there other, more specific laws/rules that we can use to assign each violation to the specific rule it violates ?

• Violations by Israel:
  • Civilian Deaths - an alleged violation is of Principle of distinction and/or Necessity and proportionality.
  • Destruction of homes - ditto.
  • Shelling of UNRWA schools - ditto
  • Infrastructures - ditto
  • Attacks on journalists - I don't see it covered by IHL.I know it's "wrong" to attack journalists, but which law does it violate ?

• Violations by Hamas:
  • Human shields and its sub-sections - obviously Principle of distinction
  • Intimidation of journalists - same question as above
  • A missing section - use of militants in civilian clothes. It is mentioned in passing as a part of intimidation of journalists.

- WarKosign (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I am not sure what exactly you are trying to do. IHL has two basic principles. Proportionality and Distinction. That is correct. But what does this have to do with this section? You are not making judgements based on these principles, the various organizations are. One should mention the various areas which are notable and let the various organizations given their opinions in each area. Kingsindian (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I'm trying to find a list of applicable laws and rules. Area being notable or not is subjective. A set list of rules is an objective way to list all the violations. There is this list, for example International_humanitarian_law#IHL_provisions_and_principles_protecting_civilians, but it also doesn't cover UN or journalists. Or, for example Perfidy - is it a violation of IHL ? is it a war crime ? WarKosign (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: As I said, it is not up to you or me to determine which laws were broken. At the moment, there is no comprehensive report of all the alleged violations, like the Goldstone report, for example. One could have used that as a source in the 2008-9 war. Right now, we have to go by notability, and what the different organizations say about each topic. Kingsindian (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Attacking journalist violates the Geneva convention obviously as they are civilians. GGranddad (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is illegitimate, as proposed, it involves WP:OR. We are not in here to adjudicate what international law says and then evaluate these instances. We are here strictly to transcribe what mainstream news sources report. That is all. There is no margin for working our way round or out of what sources state.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think there is enough space to list all international law issues related to attacks on journalists. For huge part of world, including official US and EU governments, Al Aqsa TV operatives are not considered to be "journalists" but "terrorists" I cited an official US government position, that all employed by Al Aqsa TV should be considered "terrorists". I do not take stand on this issue, and I think no one should take position siding with one or other view. This issue previously raised a huge polemic [1] However this contradictory views on Al Aqsa TV operatives have to be make clear, when they are mentioned in this context.--Tritomex (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The word terrorist is a bit of joke, it is used by state actors to diminish the people who are fighting against them. The Nazis used to call people fighting against them terrorists as well. Also just because America considers someone to be a terrorist does not make it true. Fact is that most of the entire world do not consider Hamas to be terrorists. Anyway these two guys were journalists and deserve the protection under the law.Amnesty and HRW actually considers the bombing of media outlets in Gaza as a war crime.GGranddad (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You have right for your personal opinion and even bias on this issue, outside Wikipedia. For Wikipedia articles, neutrality of editing and respecting all relevant views is a must. Our opinions are not sources for any claims. The opinion of USA government and EU governments, and others is however something that must be taken in consideration when balanced WP:NPOV, edits on this issue is being made. Otherwise anyone could claim, on any subject, whatever is his/her political attitude. its not upon us to judge on Al Aqsa TV operatives, but to present all relevant views.Tritomex (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, we can put forward that the USA and Israel consider all Hamas media workers and journalists are terrorists while stating that the entire rest of the world does not think so.GGranddad (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, pending that you have reliable source that the "entire rest of world" does not think so.Tritomex (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tritomex, please desist. When Israel wiped out the 42 graduates of a Gaza police academy in the first hour of the 2008 operation, and then murdered another 200 while bombing police stations, international law experts said that this was a violation of international law. The Goldstone report, to cite one of many that distinguish police from the military in a state, found:

The Mission examined the attacks against six police facilities, four of them during the first minutes of the military operations on 27 December 2008, resulting in the death of 99policemen and nine members of the public. Overall, the approximately 240 policemen killed by Israeliforces constitute more than one sixth of the Palestinian casualties. The circumstances of the attacks seem to indicate, and the Government of Israel’s July 2009 report on the military operations confirm, that the policemen were deliberately targeted and killed on the ground that the police, as an institution or a large part of the policemen individually, are, in the Government of Israel’s view, part of the Palestinian military forces in Gaza. 34. To examine whether the attacks against the police were compatible with the principle of distinction between civilian and military objects and persons, the Mission analysed the institutional development of the Gaza police since Hamas took complete control of Gaza in July 2007 and merged the Gaza police with the “Executive Force” it had created after its election victory. The Mission finds that, while a great number of the Gaza policemen were recruited among Hamas supporters or members of Palestinian armed groups, the Gaza police were a civilian law-enforcement agency. The Mission also concludes that the policemen killed on 27 December 2008 cannot be said to have been taking a direct part in hostilities and thus did not lose their civilian immunity from direct attack as civilians on this basis. The Mission accepts that there may be individual members of the Gaza police that were at the same time members of Palestinian armed groups and thus combatants. It concludes, however, that the attacks against the police facilities on the first day of the armed operations failed to strike an acceptable balance between the direct military advantage anticipated (i.e. the killing of those policemen who may have been members of Palestinian armed groups) and the loss of civilian life i.e. the other policemen killed and members of the public who would inevitably have been present or in the vicinity), and therefore violated international humanitarian law.

To be a member of Hamas is not to be a terrorist, except as a POV. Terrorist organizations do not sign documents, as Hamas just did, which allow the ICJ to bring any of their members to justice, if they are accused, as the US, Eu, and Israel may wish to do, of terroristic acts. As is well known, the US itself has granted exemption from prosecution to many convicted terrorists, and refuses to sign precisely the protocols that would open its own actions in foreign countries to prosecution for terrorism.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention to discuss 2008 or 2012 events, nor I wish to take stand what Hamas is. Wikipedia is not a forum. I would like to have the exact list of each country standing on this issue, to know exactly what neutral editing on this subject requires. As far as I found only 2 countries outside Arab and Islamic world, explicitly stated not to consider Hamas a terrorist organization (Russia, and China) while inside Arab world, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan banned or designed Hamas as terrorist organization, as did all EU countries, Australia, Japan, United States, New Zeeland, Canada and Mexico, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia) I do not have knowledge about the position of other countries (South American states, Africa, South Korea, and even other Arab countries for example). If someone knows reliable source on this issue, it could be helpful, for all editors.

What I want to ask everyone, once again, is to adhere to 1RR, as there were again serious breaches of this rule, in last few days.--Tritomex (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR. One comment: anyone can sign a paper. Even a law less terrorist organization like ISIS or Hamas. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6

Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6.

• The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge."
• Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge."
• Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught."
• New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. "
• The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge"
• Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire."

I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions.

J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over"

Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Wikipedia's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Al-Aqsa

@WarKosign: Your edit here is not to the point. Whether the US govt. defines Al-Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is beside the point of whether targeting them is legal or not. Kingsindian (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Why not ? Argument: Israel attacked journalists, which is an alleged violation of IHL. Counter argument: some international bodies, including the US government consider them terrorists, which makes them a legitimate target. WarKosign (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing alleged about it, if you attack journalists then you are breaking the law. I believe Israel killed about 9 journalists in Gaza this time around.Can you show us a link from some international bodies that states that journalists are terrorists? Thanks. GGranddad (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No one, other than ISIS, attacked journalists. A TV station is not a journalist and journalists do get killed in war zones even without being a direct target. To the point -- if ISIS TV station is attacked, certainly, it merits to add that it is considered a terrorist body regardless if ISIS "journalists" are killed in the process. (read: replace ISIS with Hamas -- there's not a huge difference anyway [2]) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS? Please try and keep to the topic, this is about Gaza and journalists there. HRW and Amnesty have both accused Israel of attacking journalists and media outlets in Gaza illegally.GGranddad (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: Sure it is alleged. You are alleging it now. Wishing or believing it very strongly doesn't make it absolute truth. Do you have on you undeniable proof that the event happened, that they were indeed journalists and not terrorists in disguise, that they were killed by IDF and that it happened intentionally ? We are not here to decide whether the allegation are correct or not. We are only to report them. We do have proof that such a claim was made, hence this section. WarKosign (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not alleged that it is against the law to attack journalists, it is against the law.You stated that attacking journalists was allegedly against the law, you are wrong, it is against the law.GGranddad (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This from HRW. “Just because Israel says a journalist was a fighter or a TV station was a command center does not make it so,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Journalists who praise Hamas and TV stations that applaud attacks on Israel may be propagandists, but that does not make them legitimate targets under the laws of war.”GGranddad (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To the point of this section (legal debates are a waste of time) -- a gazillibillion NGOs and their failed electornic-intifada contributors (see section about Ms Awad), are not more important than the tiny insignificant government called USA. If they say something about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or about the Hamas run PR department called Al-Aqsa TV) it belongs in the article's body. Yes. It does. In fact, it should probably be placed before NGO allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Your added statement makes no reference to the legality of targeting them. It simply says that the US govt. does not distinguish between Hamas and al-Aqsa television station as terrorist. The relevant policy is quoted by GGranddad, however, that comes from 2012, so it cannot be directly included here. I am still waiting for HRW etc. to write a comprehensive report, but for the moment, I have included Reporters without Borders statement and Al-Haq statement affirming the illegality of targeting journalists even if they are propagandists or belong to a so-called terrorist organization. To MarciulionisHOF, I have ignored you till now, and will continue to ignore you. Please read WP:FORUM. Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have stated it was from 2012 but it obviously points out HRW opinion on the law relating to events and the same events happened in 2014 Gaza war.We need to wait for the NGO reports from this conflict of course.GGranddad (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:. Sources "affirming" and "plastering" and all that jazz are indeed foruming. US gov perspective is not foruming, though. I hope these points are clear enough so that no one will ignore them. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Once it established (that some people believe) that Al-Aqsa TV journalists are member of Hamas, attacking them is as (il)legal as attacking any (other) hamas member. This source mentions that IDF believe this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/20/israelgaza-unlawful-israeli-attacks-palestinian-media. I will add it, does it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot add it, it is from 2012 war not this one and so is your link.GGranddad (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Indeed as GGranddad mentions, the report is from 2012. In any case, the Israeli statement about why they targeted the TV stations is already present. There does not need to be anything else. And, as I said, the US position on whether they consider Al Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is not relevant here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is that a leading global power (read: the USA, not a silly NGO) and Israel, stating a long term perspective on the Hamas PR department (Flying Mosque TV) is most relevant to avoid any instances of plastering affirmation. Adding long-standing, mainstream views is the encyclopedic thing to do. Removing them based on disliking the mainstream views (a gazzillibillion NGOs and their fantastical names put aside) is bad jazz. I do agree, that outside long term perspective of the global powers, sources should show as much relation to the recent dance-fight rather than articles from 2012. However, if an Israeli or US official has a statement, it should be noted (with the relevant time-stamp). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In between the vast amount of WP:FORUMing one can detect some small argument by MarciulionisHOF. However, it is without basis. The statement by the US Treasury (in 2010) about Hamas ties, says nothing at all about whether it is legal to target Al Aqsa TV station. To put it in this section is wholly WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia wouldn't wish to plaster its articles with worthless/meaningless NGO flamings without some real world notable perspective next to them. Common sense basis, is to include the US view on the Flying Mosque TV station. The initial edit pasted on this topic[3] seemed quite normative to me and objections have been on technicalities, rather than substance. Should there be found a specific source? Where the US talks specifically about a journalist or two that got hurt during an attack in the vicinity of Hamas PR department? Just to counter every NGO out there? That is absurd. The US repeatedly talk about how Israel has the right to defend itself and only counter instances where the case in unclear. In the case of the Flying Mosque TV -- the case IS clear and we have a source to boot. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: "Hamas' station plays a "central role in managing the media battle against the Israeli lies," the Bloc said."[4] --- Journalists, yes? If anything is undue is Reporters Without Borders (a useless organization when dealing with law-less militants like ISIS and Hamas) using something from 1999 to make bogus allegations against a portion of the IDF's statement (ignoring the part about Flying Mosque TV being used to parlay orders to operatives seems relevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) : retouch MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It has to be made clear, per WP:NPOV, when Al Aqsa TV and its operatives are mentioned, that for huge part of the world, Hamas political wing, including organizations run by this wing, (to which Al Aqsa TV belongs) are considered a terrorist infrastructure. We should not take stand on this issue, but we are an explicit claim that the US does not distinguish between "armed terrorists" and Al Aqsa TV operatives does not mean that the US thinks that Al Aqsa TV is legitimate target. Well, this is not correct as the US means exactly that,. as "terrorist targets" are considered legitimate targets by international law. More so, other states which declared Hamas political wing, and all of its institutions as a "terrorist organization" and this includes 40+ countries, legally do not consider Al Aqsa TV as legitimate media, nor they consider its operatives as journalists.--Tritomex (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to see some sources directly justifying the targeting of Al Aqsa journalists, not handwaving. All I see right now, is a US Treasury statement saying that Al Aqsa TV and Hamas are intimately tied and thus both are terrorist. Fine, but nobody is denying that. Just being a member of Hamas does not make targeting them legal. Hamas' politicians are not considered militants, for example. (This is why the Washington Post passage added by Tritomex is also irrelevant). Kingsindian (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, There's a mistake in your argument. An operational affiliation with Hamas means you are a legal target. There is not a single reputable source saying that killing Hamas operatives is illegal. As for Flying Mosque TV, Israel made a statement (e.g. used to parlay Hamas orders). The US will, obviously, not address each and every case and, certainly, won't use big words like 'illegal'. They have made a general statement that the Hamas PR department, in charge of "managing the media battle against the Israeli lies", is a terrorist body (which lies under legality definitions even if unmentioned directly). Israel and US views about the Flying Mosque TV are not hand-waving even if the word 'legal' was not dropped in. Hamas' "politicians" ARE considered legal targets by both Israel and the US due to their association with what both consider a terrorist organization. Certainly, countries have a bigger say (or at least, similar article space) than a gazzillibillion NGOs vying for extra prominence through sensationalism and wanton allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The 2010 treasury article is a primary source talking about ties. And it makes no determination for the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV. There needs to be a reliable secondary source reporting on the Treasury report, and connecting it to targeting of TV station during a war. Without that, it is WP:OR. I have added tags. Kingsindian (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I can understand your concern but disagree with an original research tag (which part of that policy fits here?). The article does not include original arguments, not listed in the references. Certainly, mainstream views on the legal status of the battle station is pertinent to any NGO silliness. While we don't have another source and we remain in disagreement, it might be interesting to hear views on this from more editors on the best way to present the varying perspectives on the legal status of the battle station (i.e. based on mainstream views). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: From WP:OR. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Kingsindian (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, but no one will say "it IS legal to attack XXX". We certainly have (a) reliable source. (b) no new conclusion is implied -- just the basic, mainstream one. (c) directly related to the legal status of the battle station. I hope, even if you disagree, that you can at least see my point. Since I'm not certain you are convinced or that you understand where your demand for a source responding directly to an absurd NGO (usually, even more absurd NGOs do that -- e.g. CAMERA, Honestreporting.com, etc.) is hurting a very normative presentation of the mainstream views. 'JWB say X, the US and Israel see it differently'. I urge you to reconsider. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, with MarciulionisHOF, no one details the legality of this particular military action, but the designation of Al Aqsa TV as a legitimate media, and its operatives as journalists which is a hotly disputed and polemic issue. Per WP:NPOV, we should not take a stand on this issue, but present all relevant views. This has nothing to do with OR and directly supports the material being presented .Tritomex (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF and Tritomex: I have no idea what you mean by "no one will say it is legal to attack XXX". Of course many orgs specifically render opinions on when it is legal to target and when it is not. Under certain circumstances, it is ok to target press installations. The circumstances have already been mentioned in Israel's justification, namely, if they are transmitting military codes or something. It is fine to mention that. And the press-related and human rights organizations have condemned it on the basis that they have determined (they don't take Israel's claim to have any basis in fact). I have no issue with including anything which is relevant. This Treasury stuff is not relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, The US treasury is an extension of congress. This source can be added: [5] -- basically speaking, the US is a spec more notable than silly NGOs (Can we at least agree on that?). If they have a legal position on something, it is relevant. I hope, the added source helps validate that this is not coming from some pencil pusher in the treasury, but is an official view of the US gov. Btw, current phrasing is problematic. e.g "Journalists are considered civilians and should not be targeted under international humanitarian law." (no attribution given). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have no idea how that new source (Arutz Sheva) is important. The notability of the US Treasury report has already been established by secondary sources added by Tritomex. I am not disputing that. I am questioning the relevance. So far, no relevance has been established. I need direct relevance, a source directly addressing the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV, as the Reporters Without Borders and Al Haq source do. Kingsindian (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I've been saying the past few replies that your request is unreasonable because no one says "its legal to ...". NGOs likes to use big words like 'illegal', and states like to use general terms like 'terrorist', which imply legality. The only ones who attack NGO silliness are even sillier NGOs like CAMERA. On occasion, you get an expert who says 'Israel has the right to defend itself', but it is simply unreasonable to expect a one to one ratio between the words 'illegal' and 'legal'. Do we have any other examples where these 'illegal' allegations were met with the word "legal" instead of a more complex term such as "terrorist"?

It's not a position of the government unless it's actually stated by the government. The fact that no statement has been issued means the government has no official position. Saying that it follows logically from previous government opinions is WP:OR and misleading, as it implies that government positions are always logically self-consistent, which is patently false. Governments are not like individuals, who can hold opinions without stating them. The US government isn't "thinking" anything right now. That's why they use such nebulous terms, because they don't want to have an opinion until they have to. In the absence of an actual statement of opinion, no opinion exists. Anything else is WP:OR. 162.157.79.24 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The introduction does not summarize the contexts of the article

The introduction does not summarize more than half of the article, while the impact on Gaza civilians was given unproportionally huge section of the lead, practically copying the test already written beneath.Tritomex (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC) The article has 8 sections, so the introduction should consist of 2 to 3 sentences from each section as a summary.--Tritomex (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. There is no reason why the two largest paragraphs are simply parroting each other and restating the same information twice (just one being figures provided from the UN and the other being figures from the Gaza government Ministries. both neutral sources, of course...). I would suggest re-writting this without any statistics other than very broad things like "thousands of Palestinians have been killed or wounded and dozens of Israelis have been killed in the conflict. As a result of the conflict hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced." This covers the topic without removing anything except the many figures (which need to be changed by the hour) and also the amazing publicity and advertising it provides for the ongoing UN Gaza fund raising campaign. So be bold but remember W:NPOV and try not to remove valid references whenever possible.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, that there is lot of duplication in the last 2 paragraphs, though it would be too bold to rewrite the lead directly. See WP:STATUSQUO. I will put up a draft of the lead here (or someone else can do it), and people can make changes on it. With a rough draft which seems a bit better than the current one, we can put it up. Kingsindian (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft of the lead

Operation Protective Edge (Template:Lang-he-n, Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Strong Cliff"), is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, which escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip on 6 July.

By August 5, Israel's combined ground, air and naval forces had struck 4,762 targets in Gaza, while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired over 3000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel. Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires (including one on 5 August, during which all Israeli soldiers were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip) fell apart or expired, before an Egyptian proposal for a 72-hour ceasefire was accepted by Israeli and Palestinian officials on 10 August.

On 10 August, another Egyptian proposal for a 72-hour ceasefire was negotiated and agreed upon Israeli and Palestinian officials, and on 13 August it was extended for another 120 hours to allow both sides to continue negotiations for a long-term solution to end the month-long fighting. On 19 August, a 24 hour ceasefire extension renewal was violated when 29 Hamas rockets were fired into Israel, and the Israeli Air Force carried out airstrikes in response, killing 9 Gazans. Peace talks subsequently fell apart.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada, though both the exact number of deaths and the percentage of the dead who were militants as opposed to civilians have been in dispute. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, 2,104 Gazans have been killed and 10,500 have been wounded, of which 80% were civilians. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 1,444 (72%) of 2,042 deaths they documented were civilians, of whom 724 (35% of all deaths) were women or children. According to the Israeli government, 40%-50% of Gazan fatalities have been combatants. 64 IDF soldiers have been killed, as well as two Israeli civilians. The Israel Defense Forces have stated that Hamas has used civilians as "human shields"; Hamas has stated that it does not use human shields.

As of 5 August 2014 an OCHA report stated that in the Gaza Strip, 520,000 Palestinians (approximately 30% of Gaza's population) may have been displaced, of whom 273,000 were taking shelter in 90 UN-run schools. UNRWA has exhausted its capacity to absorb displaced persons, and overcrowding in shelters risks the outbreak of epidemics. On at least six occasions Israeli artillery shells have hit UNRWA schools that were serving as shelters. 1.5 million people in Gaza have limited or no access to water supplies. 26 health facilities have been damaged, 17,200 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes have suffered major or minor damaged but are still inhabitable. More than 485,000 internally displaced persons are in need of emergency food assistance. In Israel, an estimated 5,000 – 8,000 citizens of Southern Israel have fled their homes due to the threat of rocket and mortar attacks.

References

The problem with this proposal is that its not very much different than the current introduction. The Impact on civilian population of Gaza can not take 40% of introduction, when we have 7 other sections which all need to be mentioned equally. My proposal was to give 2-3 sentences about each section. I will try to make a proposal as soon as I will have enough time.Tritomex (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: That counts as a "Duh!":) It is "not very much different" because...it is in fact identical. I just copy pasted it from there to serve as a starting point. Kingsindian (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph suggestion

I hope most editors can agree that the lead is a hot mess. I propose we start on writing/agreeing on a basic lead paragraph. A short introduction with no background which explains the topic of the article. In that regard, I made an attempt which is wholly based on the current version of the lead paragraph of Operation Defensive Shield. Give me your thoughts so I know if it can be inserted......

Operation Protective Edge (Template:Lang-he-n, Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Strong Cliff"), is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the stated aim of ending rocket fire from the Gaza strip into Israel, It was later expanded to include the destruction of tunnels used by militants for cross-border attacks.

Reworked to include BBC and tunnels. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Comments

Each event in this area has the problem that each side will find a previous infraction for which the action is a "reaction". Basic fairness at least requires one hop for each and no more -- the rest can be in the background section. I suggest: "expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, which escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip." For establishing the starting point, consult the section Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6 Kingsindian (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

But if we do that, we have to say why Israel killed those 6 martyrdom seekers in the first place. My suggestion explains the Israeli claims for a wide-scale "operation". Would it be better if we remove Israel's stated reasoning for recruiting 40,000 reserves as well in the name of avoiding back-and forths that go on to the days of Muhammad slaughtering and beheading the Jews of Yathrib ... because they made fun of him? On point, a few extra rockets are not much of an escalation. The killing of 6 or 3 or 1 whatever on whoever's side are not lead paragraph material, but background material. OK. Assuming you disagree. Let's try to be be encyclopedia -- what do mainstream sources say? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I just added a source (BBC), which in my understanding, uses the same phrasing as I suggested. It does not have mention of any 6 militants - because doing that is C-R-hey-ZEE... kidding. Hope that BBC can be accepted. I remind: my structure is based on the existing structure of Operation Cast Lead, which I'm sure survived many eyes - so it makes good sense to consider it as a good long term structure. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: No, we don't have to do anything. I already said, one hop from each (and no more) is basic fairness and NPOV. If you mention rocket attacks and tunnels, and don't mention the airstrikes, it is not acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So the BBC is unfair? Wikipedia should add a non-notable to the 1st sentence? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether BBC is unfair or not is irrelevant. BBC is not Wikipedia. There is no reason to hew to its phrasing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF:: @Kingsindian:

So let us try to combine all views for introduction: " Operation Protective Edge (Hebrew: צוּק אֵיתָן, Tzuk Eitan, il "Solid Rock"),is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, Although rocket attacks by different militant groups from Gaza occurred during entire year, it escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip on 6 July.

Note I checked the numbers of rocket atacks: Januar 22, Februar 9, march 65, april 24, may 7, June 62, July 1-9, July 2 -18, july 3-13, july 4 25, july 5-17.Tritomex (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: The story with the rockets is much more complex than that. See the background section for details. Rockets continued at a very low level all the way after 2012 ceasefire. There was a small escalation after the crackdown in the West Bank, when non-Hamas factions started rocket fire, and a major escalation after the airstrike on July 6, when Hamas itself started. Virtually all analysts single out the July 6 date as important; there was a major barrage. I have already written a separate section giving all references. Kingsindian (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing complex about rockets launched at your 4 year old girl - you pick her up in her sleep and take her to the hallway because you don't have a shelter and the hallway is relatively speaking the safest place in your house. If doesn't matter if its one rocket or more as long as there are rockets. On point -- please provide a few examples of these analysis sources that think 6 unknown Arab Liberation Militants in Gaza are super-important. The BBC's article (here again:[6]) about the ending of fighting does not mention this. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

France 24, doesn't care about 6 nobody's either - [7] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft proposal (2)

The long term conflict between Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and Israel escalated on july 8. Israel launched (Hebrew: מִבְצַע צוּק אֵיתָן, Mivtza' Tzuk Eitan, ("Operation Protective edge"), to stop rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip which Gaza based militant factions had undertaken allegedly in response to an Israeli crackdown on Hamas members and institutions on the West Bank, which Israel claimed to carried out as a response to the kidnapping of 3 Israeli teenagers, by Hamas militants. Hamas leadership, claimed responsibility for the actions and praised the act, although denied prior knowledge and authorization of it, a position rejected by Israel

Israel's combined ground, air and naval forces had struck 4,762 targets in Gaza, while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired over 3000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel. Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires (including one on 5 August, during which all Israeli soldiers were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip) fell apart or expired.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada, though both the exact number of deaths and the percentage of the dead who are civilians has been disputed. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 1,454 (72%) of 2,076 deaths they documented were civilians. According to the Israeli government, 40%-50% of Gazan fatalities (900-1000) have been combatants. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, affiliated to Hamas, 2,134 Gazans have been killed and 10,915 have been wounded, of which 80% were civilians. 64 IDF soldiers have been killed. Three Israeli civilians and a Thai worker were also killed. Al least 25 Gaza civilians, accused of collaboration with Israel were killed in Hamas summarily executions. Israel claimed that Hamas has used civilian infrastructure such as homes, hospitals, schools, UN facilities and mosques for attacks, and civilians as "human shields" a claim that Hamas denied.

In Gaza 17,200 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes have suffered major or minor damaged but are still inhabitable. More than 485,000 internally displaced persons were in need of emergency food assistance. In Israel the combined direct and indirect demage stood between $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion. as of august 11.

@Kingsindian: @Monopoly31121993:

Here is my provisional proposal for the lead.Tritomex (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: There are too many drafts now (three). Regarding the first paragraph, I have stated my opinions in the "comments" section above. Each event can be seen as a reaction to a previous event. I proposed that there should be exactly one hop from each and no more. The phrasing I prefer is given above. Kingsindian (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft proposal (3)

The conflict between Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and Israel escalated on July 8 when Israel launched "Operation Protective Edge".
Operation Pillar of Defence and alleged violations of its ceasefire by both sides since led to the conflict.

Israel struck thousands of targets in Gaza while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired thousands of missiles into Israel.Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires fell apart or expired.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada.

There was severe damage to homes and infrastructures in Gaza, as well as impact on Israel.

A number of legal issues concerning the conflict have arisen during course of the fighting.

I propose this much shorter version - a single sentence summarizing and linking to every major section. The selection of the major sections and the wording of the sentences is not final, it's just a suggestion for a way to guarantee a much shorter lead - don't duplicate information from the article itself, announce its existence and link to it. WarKosign (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Although unconventional proposal, for the reasons stated as well as because I am afraid that any detailed wording will not lead to consensus, I can accept your proposed draft as a compromise solution. --Tritomex (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but I don't know of any articles constructed like this. What about a similar construct, only without the in-article links? Any thoughts on my suggestion for first para? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with repeating stuff in the lead which is there in the body of the text. In fact, that is the correct practice, per WP:LEAD. The lead is meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole article. Many people just read the lead, and nothing else. So this proposal is not good. Kingsindian (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the shortened version that has been posted here. The whole idea of the lead is to summarize what is in the article.GGranddad (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this image factual?

The image File:Map-of-rockets-launches-from-gaza-from-2014-07-08-to-2014-07-31.jpg is being used with the caption "Map showing rocket launch sites in Gaza". That's inaccurate. As it currently stands, the image is of an IDF propaganda poster that contains what the IDF claims is a map of rocket launches from Gaza. So really the picture would belong in the 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Media_coverage or some place like that. The picture contains the statement "Hamas fires rockets from everywhere in Gaza", which is incredibly POV.VR _talk 06:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have another source providing a map ? Do you have a source saying that this map is incorrect ? You can't ask to remove the facts just because you don't like them. Why aren't you claiming that the map of damaged houses in Gaza is propaganda and POV ? WarKosign (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The map of damage in Gaza is from the UN, the map of rocket attacks comes from one side in the conflict,Israel obviously. I think the caption on it should read claimed rocket sites map from the IDF or something like that.Also, just because Israel releases a map does not make the content of it a fact.GGranddad (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of ten images showing the israeli POV, atleast six are taken from IDF blog. The rocket range map was created by original research, while the source of the shelter sign is unknown. Picture of siderot factory is own work and Helsinki protests is from a news source.

As per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, the blog images do not qualify.

Out of the ten images showing the Palestinian POV, three are from btselem, three are own works, one is a video grab {from moigovps), two are own works based on UN satellite info, one is from flickr. --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 15:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I took the photo of the shelter sign when I was at the airport last week. It is the first time I uploaded an image, is there something wrong with it ? WarKosign (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the rocket map launch with a cropped version that does not have the "Hamas fires from everywhere" statement. The statement is an exaggeration, otherwise whole map would be red. As for the map coming from a single side, a) Is there a map of launch sites published by Hamas or the UN ? b) the caption clearly says that this is an IDF-released map. WarKosign (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Meshaal's denial

As a general point, I would be careful about Wikipedia uncritically accepting and putting undue weight on Meshaal's denial that Hamas political leadership were aware of the kidnapping, as if this proves the organization's innocence. Meshaal is an exiled political spokesman, mainly for Western audiences, and the degree to which he controls Hamas military operations is highly dubious. For example:

[Meshaal] disclaimed any direct responsibility for the Hamas suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians during the 1990s and 2000s. "I'm a political leader, and I do not interfere in military affairs," he said. "What the Palestinian people do in resisting occupation are details that I do not get myself involved in."

He took a similar position when pressed about the onslaught of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, a stance that raises questions about just how much control the group's political leaders have over its military wing. He acknowledged that in the past, Hamas got its rockets and weapons from "different sources" — an apparent reference to aid that the group's military wing has gotten from Iran. "Now it's becoming very difficult to move these rockets through, and we manufacture most of them, if not all of them, in Gaza," he said. "We depend on ourselves in making our weaponry."

Meshaal was asked how many rockets Hamas has. "I don't know," he said, smiling. "I'm the head of the political bureau...I direct the policies and the positions. But not the details when it comes to military issues."

Meshaal did acknowledge that Hamas members were behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers hitchhiking on the West Bank in June but said Hamas political leaders did not know about the operation "in advance." Still, he justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands. "Our view is that soldiers and settlers in the West Bank are aggressors, and they are illegally living in these occupied and stolen lands," he said. "And the right to resist them is the right of Palestinians."

Just a concern of mine.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The person who took credit for the kidnapping is also a person in exile in Turkey, isn't he? See here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if I was him I would not be claiming I was responsible for any attacks at all being as he has just signed up for the Palestinians going to the ICC.Have you ever thought he was not really being honest in that interview for personal safety issues, like not doing 30 years in prison for war crimes?I think the piece about him in the article is fine, it is sourced from main stream media and meets wikipedia standards.Why do you not believe him when he says he did not know about the kidnapping but believe him in the article you posted? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me..GGranddad (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian, yes, as Wikipedia emphasizes, without using similar language in reference to Meshaal. @GGranddad, I don't know what you're getting at.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source on the power struggles within Hamas.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't second guess sources. A large amount of fabrication, falsification, cover-ups and dubious formal statements characterizes both sides, and much of the press which recycles official handouts. Many Israeli journalists have stated that the way their press, radio etc has fallen in lockstep with government propaganda is disgraceful, and of course we have a huge section ignoring this, but focusing on what those handouts insinuate, and Hamas threats to journalists. I can't be bothered doing such a section, but trying to say Hamas is exceptional in not admitting what an interested party its adversary insinuates, is a bit silly, esp. given the fact that all great powers lie through their teeth, as historians are required to tediously note in books no one reads.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of soldiers + child in the timeline section

That photo has been criticized as dubious many times. Here is a better one. Please, someone replace it with this. Kingsindian (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ashkelon residents run for shelter during a bomb alert.

I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons so I restored it. What is dubious about it? WarKosign (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Here are some criticisms. Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#WP:CLAIM. Apart from the dubious way in which the photo has been taken, it is best to simply avoid photos from either side. The photo I have given is not contested by anyone and shows the same issue: rocket attacks on Israel. Kingsindian (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I see that the criticism is that we have no way of knowing it wasn't staged or faked. Same criticism can be applied to every single photo. How do we know that the people in the picture you are suggesting aren't actors in a studio ?

Most of the pictures taken during fighting will either be taking by people representing a side and released as PR and thus subject to based claims of POV or by journalists and therefore copyrighted. WarKosign (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the picture in question of the Israeli soldiers shielding a kid is staged and most pictures taken in conflict come from photo journalists who put their name to them.Is there any name attacked to that picture? I see nothing wrong with replacing it with the other picture or another one.GGranddad (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It was reproduced in defiance of an earlier discussion which cast serious doubts on its authenticity. When in doubt, esp. with the propaganda war also being waged, one is obliged to not touch questionable 'stuff' with a 10-foot pole. I think requests were made for detailed information on who took it, where, and at what time. No one replied. No one replied to the criticisms of what looks to any practiced eye like a staged event. These considerations alone mean no one should put it back unless they can satisfy the suspicions over it.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked the photo up. It is credited to Li Aviv Dadon, who is apparently the kid's mother. http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/in-israel/local/soldiers-protecting-a-child-6527 Not an IDF photo, and no evidence of it being staged - no more than any other photo. WarKosign (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Is there some special reason you want to use this particular photo? The photo is from IDF's Flickr account. As I said already, the photo is demonstrating rocket attacks on Israel. The photo on the right is by Reuters and freely available, demonstrating the same thing. Why not use that? As to staging, there are many questions about the photo. Virtually every photo you will see, will have people lying flat on the ground to avoid rocket fire. The kind of behaviour shown in the photo is very unusual. It is best to simply remove the IDF photo and use the Reuters photo which is better in every way. Kingsindian (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I was just wondering why these Israeli soldiers were protecting this kid supposedly from rocket fire while his mother stood there taking a picture, was she not worried about rockets? Sounds staged to me frankly.GGranddad (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Um. Well, could be true, but that is a very strange account, apart from the oddness of the postures and the lighting. The mother says the 'door' jammed, in a car in which she, her husband and her 4 and a half year old child were travelling. The husband and wife couldn't get out of the car with the 'jammed door', but a door near the child could be opened. That means he was in the back seat. But why is it that both husband and wife had trouble with a 'jammed door', when there are two doors, one for either side of the front seats? Very very strange, as strange as the handkerchief or paper under the soldier's right knee and the curious lighting. Know how long it would take a young dad to dive into the back seat and grab his son as he got out of the car in a situation of threat? About3 seconds. No, the two parents struggled with 'one' of the two doors in the front as their kid managed to open by himself the back door, get out and toddle away. Sure. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What is also strange is that she says she was panicked, sirens going off,jammed doors, rockets coming in,people running for the shelter but she stops to take a picture. GGranddad (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I personally like this picture. There are countless other pictures of people flying on the floor between their cars or taking shelter in staircases inside buildings, but this shows the human element. If there is still a consensus against this picture with valid reference - sure, let's replace it with any of the boring ones.

@GGranddad and Nishidani: No mention of running to a shelter anywhere. "Jammed" probably means "didn't open on the first try". The instructions for alarm while driving is to stop the car, exit it and lay on the floor. Depending on their location, they had between 15 seconds and 2 minutes. She probably panicked about her kid running off by himself, so once she saw him safe she could take the picture. Objectively, lying down doesn't reduce the danger by much. Whenever the alarm caught me in the middle of the road I stopped the car, exited it but remained standing up and looked for a smoke trail in the sky. If I'd seen something as interesting I would've surely try to take a picture. This is probably where most of the published pictures of Iron Dome interceptions (smoke trail ending with a little cloud) came from. WarKosign (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your disingenuousness began when in reply to Kingsindian's question you wrote above:

:I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons so I restored it. What is dubious about it?

Out of courtesy I did not note immediately that 2 weeks ago you asked me why I removed the picture, on my talk page. I duly replied with details and a reference to the fact it had been discussed. You did not reply, and it appears, just reintroduced the picture here, surreptitiously, because it did technically require that, given both the earlier discussion and my own answer, it required consensus. Bad, bad manners. The woman admits that the photo was posed, whatever the circumstances, unlike Kingsindian's alternative which is in real time.

In one version it was uploaded by the IDF in this version; it was uploaded by the mother.

If anyone can make sense of the sequence of events in this they are better readers of narrative sequence than me.

(a)It happened yesterday at 1pm, Lee Aviv Dadon – 34 year old, and her husband Barak drove with their child, 4.5 years old, when suddenly an alarm went off, the door was jammed and the parents panicked. Yair managed to get out of the car through another door, and then the couple witnessed an emotional sight, home front command officers grabbed and embraced the son to protect him. The mother took footage of the incident and uploaded the picture, which caused a lot of positive feedback.

(b)“As we entered our neighborhood in Rehovot the alarm went off.” Said Dadon. “We stopped at the side of the road, a vehicle in front of us also stopped, and 4 officers from the home front command exited the vehicle, and instead of protecting themselves they protected my son.” Her husband took the baby out of the car, and asked her wife to help Yair out of the car. “Everyone were hiding in cover, it was very stressful while I struggled with the car door, and when he ran for cover. I suddenly saw two home front command soldiers embracing him, it was simply amazing, and I asked them for permission to photo the moment.” The soldiers who do not know the family, simply acted on instinct to protect the child, and even after the alarm they spoke with the child to make sure he is relaxed and calm. “I thanked them, I was really emotional, Yair was calm”. Immediately after the event, she knew she has to do something, and uploaded the picture, “I wanted everyone to see the true face of our moral and human(e) soldiers who protect other(s) instead of themselves.”

In (b), the husband is outside the car with another baby, and asks his wife to get out of the car to look after Yair. The wife has her door stuck, and doesn't think of getting out of the other. The husband lets Yair wander off. Soldiers protect the child. The mother, with sirens screaming, thinks, 'what a lovely shot' and asks them to 'photo the moment'. I.e. the siren's blaring, her husband is somewhere with their baby, and she asks them to hold the pose. Even that is an admission that the photo is posed, and is not an incidental snap of something as it occurred (she asked permission, as the siren blared, as missiles could be striking etc.) and, obtaining it, calmly took the shot. Pull the other one. None of this makes sense, but even if it is just a confused woman, she admits the snap we have is one that was posed for once she obtained permission.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: We should not be making judgements based on "I like this" or "I like that". The photo shown is completely unrepresentative. This is not the way people protect themselves from rocket attacks. They lie flat on the ground. See the photos here and pick one you which is less unrepresentative. I will upload to commons if you like. link Kingsindian (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I noticed you removing the picture and asked you the question, but then I went on a vacation for a week. Once I returned I did not remember whom I asked and did not check your talk page, so I did not see your reply until now. My bad.
Two accounts are indeed somewhat different, but not completely contradictory. What is contradictory about "driving" and "entering their neighbourhood in Rehovot" ? Who and where says that the photo was staged ? BTW, Rehovot gives us a time frame - about a minute warning time. These reports are probably by different reporters, translated from Hebrew. Here is her own account in herbew: http://www.newz.co.il/news/%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%92%D7%A9%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%95-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%96%D7%94-%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%90-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%95. You can try google translate on it, but this is what I can tell she wrote "What an amazing army we have ! On (our) way home with the kids we were caught by an alarm. A car with home front officers stopped next to us and we all left the cars to take shelter. These two amazing officers caught my 4 year old son and protected him with their bodies. A picture is worth a thousand words." Here is a more detailed account of who went out first and which door was jammed: http://www.ch10.co.il/news/52459/#.U_uKr7vf44c. I don't think this is of critical importance for the authenticity of the picture. Handkerchief or paper under the soldier's right knee - this is clearly a piece of trash that happened to be there. The soldiers are wearing field uniforms that are used for crawling in dirt if need be, so nobody in his right mind would bother intentionally protecting it during a staged photo. Unless you find a smoking gun, assume good faith.
@Kingsindian: From what I've seen and did, this is more typical: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fedweb-assets/cache/fed-24/2/Operation_Protective_Edge1_resize508__1_1.jpg, and some people are laying down while others are crouching or standing or sitting. btselem's pictures are from the southern Israel, where the danger is far greater. Of course soldiers hugging and calming a child down is unusual - but so are most of the pictures on the page. "Ruins in Beit Hanoun" surely shows one of the most damaged houses and not some random house. Photo of the destroyed ambulance in Shuja'iyya is surely unusual - most of the other damaged cars are probably less damaged and are not ambulances, so why not replace them with more representative and average pictures ?
As for my personal preference not being a reason - you are correct. I like this picture and think it is notable. Each picture in the article is supposed to be truthful, relevant and noteable, and I think this one is better than the others you suggested. If my opinion is not in consensus I can live well with that. WarKosign (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Unfortunately, it is clear to me that no matter what argument I give, you will not agree. So no point in arguing further. I will just note that the picture had been removed earlier and was put back without discussion. This is not the correct way to do it. One is supposed to present arguments for adding disputed content, and failing a consensus, either start an RfC or some other method for adding it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure if there is a policy based argument for "unusual pictures" as this is very subjective perception. Most of the pictures here are quiet extraordinary and have high probability of being taken exactly because of this reason.--Tritomex (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I did put it back without discussion, because I did not see the discussion that resulted in the decision to remove it. Now there is (disputed) evidence that the picture is genuine. I would like to wait a few hours to give more editors chance to offer their opinion, and as I said, if I'm in minority - I'll remove the image.
@Nishidani: Knowing the mother's full name and city of residence, I found her home address and phone number. Would you like to call her and ask what exactly happened to satisfy your curiosity ? WarKosign (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the policy based argument for removing this picture? Because I do not see any.--Tritomex (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Policy based argument is simple. Use independent sources, like Reuters, when you can. This is not to say that the other points I raised are not important. Kingsindian (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign. The photo we have is not of what actually happened; by the woman's own account, something of this kind happened, and she asked permission to to photograph it, and the soldiers agreed and posed for the photo. It doesn't matter that something like this might have occurred. As anyone with an eye for these things knows, the body positions are all posed. Secondly the woman's photo was uploaded to make a point about the IDF. So it restaged an act and was uploaded to make a propaganda point. Wikipedia has zero tolerance of using its mainspace to make propaganda. As Kingsindian notes there are numerous photos of people fleeing or ducking under sirens, and this is not acceptable, as was your behaviour in ignoring editorial concerns. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are hyperenthused about the photo and want it to stick, get a RfC on its inclusion. That is standard procedure.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)to th

Just by way of noting a coincidence, an identical incident occurred yesterday. Instead of a mortar or siren, a couple and their baby child from an area notorious for the most vicious settlement policies and apartheid, the South Hebron Hills, specifically from Beit Yatir(Ariel Bardi, [Between a wall and a Green Line: Palestinian life in 'Seam Zone'] +972 magazine, March 20, 2012) had their car hit in a rock assault. Succour came from other Palestinians who happened to be passing by, who picked up the child and held him while the others extricated the family. No photo op of course: Palestinians do not belong to an army noted for its purity of arms. (Akiva Novick, Palestinians rescue settlers after West Bank attack Ynet 25 August 2014)

@Nishidani: As I already wrote, I agree that I should not have restored the picture when there was consensus on removing it. I expected to see a notice when I got a reply, did not remember whom I asked so I did not check your talk page. Indeed bad manners on my side and I apologize. However, the consensus was based on the assumption that this is a staged IDF photo. We already established that this photo is not by IDF. You are insisting that the author admits staging it. Can you please refer to the quote ? Everything I've read so far says that it was on the spur of a moment. Your analysis of body language or who left the car through which door is pure original research.

The news item - nice, too bad (but understandable) that there is no picture, and of course not relevant to the current article. Maybe you can add it to the general Israel-Palestinian conflict. It's nice to see that some Palestinians don't let their hatred strong (and sometimes justified) dislike of Israelis prevent them from doing the decent thing. I wonder what was there first, attempts to murder drivers by throwing boulders on moving cards, or separate "apartheid" road network. WarKosign (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to see that some Palestinians don't let their hatred strong (and sometimes justified) dislike of Israelis prevent them from doing the decent thing

(Not relevant to article but that's an disreputable piece of comment, implying there are 'most Palestinians who do' and 'some who' don't, let a putative universal hatred of Israelis, influence them. People who hate, hurt. People who don't hate, settlers included, do the right thing, and that has nothing to do with ethnic origin. I.e.Meir Yehoshua from Kfar Etzion did the same kind of gesture for the Abu Jayada family back in 2012 when their car was firebombed from Bat Ayin.) Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My analysis is commonsense, and is confirmed by what the photographer says, which is that she saw a scene of IDF soldiers with her child, and got out her camera and asked them if she could take a shot. That translates as restaging an incident, and posing for a photo, not 'on the spur of the moment'. The fact that it might have been taken in those circumstances is irrelevant. The positioning of the soldiers and the boy perfects corroborates that it is a posed shot, since as numerous comments have remarked, you do not in standard procedure in Israel protect children that say (he is not protected). It can't be used because of these significant and confessed facts.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking for permission to take a picture and re-staging it is not the same thing. A 4.5 year old isn't likely to co-operate with a staged photo. Anyway, since there is no overwhelming support for my position I switched to the oneKingsindian offerd. WarKosign (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Human shields redux

(Unarchiving from talk page)

@Spud770: Regarding your edit here. As I explained in my edit summary, this is duplication and too categorical a statement. The "human shields" claim is heavily contested and therefore has a big section just below discussing all the claims. All the points made in your references, including the Hamas leader's statement are discussed there. All such claims must be attributed and discussed, as is done in the section (Israel, Hamas, UN, EU, etc.) As to activists, that is quite a separate matter. This section is about involuntary human shielding, say by Hamas and others, which is a violation of international humanitarian law. This is totally different from voluntary acts by international activists. Kingsindian (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This section is not (only) about involuntary human shields; it is about Hamas encouraging civilians to act as human shields, essentially as voluntary shields. The sources all refer to both the citizens and the activists as voluntary "human shields." If there are other reliable sources contesting the existence of voluntary human shields let them be provided.

The existence of voluntary human shields is also important as it relates to civilian deaths. Spud770 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: As I have said already, the claim about Hamas encouraging civilians is already present in the section. And, as I also said already, this is a contested claim and a categorical statement like "civilians acted as human shields" is not correct. As to the activists, you may have noticed the title of this section namely "Violations of international humanitarian law" (IHL). Voluntary acts by activists do not come under this, nor is any source provided which claims this violates IHL. Kingsindian (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources all say that civilians acted as human shields. This has nothing to do with Hamas and it is not a contested claim. If you believe it is, please bring other sources. You are correct that volunteering as a human shield is not a violation of IHL. The sub-section is titled "Civilian deaths," even though civilian deaths are not necessarily a violation of IHL either. But the existence of human shields relates directly to civilian deaths is important to include in the article. Spud770 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770:

• The section on human shields discusses other sources. There are contestations about what counts as human shielding, and whether there was indeed human shielding. As regards to what counts as human shielding, there are issues regarding forcing or urging people to stay in their homes, or firing rockets from near civilian structures etc. These claims are all discussed in the section, all sourced. You can see this.
• As regards the civilian deaths, you are correct that the relation of human shields to civilian deaths should be presented. Therefore, there is a huge subsection about "human shields" within the "civilian deaths" section.Kingsindian (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Still, the issue of voluntary human shields is quite clear from the sources and deserves mention. It should not be conflated with the issue of urged or forced human shields, which is indeed contested. Spud770 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: You are not correct that the voluntary human shields has not been contested. For example, the first source quoted refers to the Kaware family, which was investigated by B'Tselem here, which states that it was not a voluntary human shield, but an inadvertent or careless use of an airstrike. This has already been discussed on the talk page (search for human shields in the talk page archives, there is a big discussion and RfC on this). The international activists are quite a separate case, as I mentioned, but as far as I know, none of them have been killed, so their relevance to civilian deaths is dubious. However, I agree on one point, that the heading "civilian deaths" is a bit awkward, because civilian deaths are not by themselves violations of IHL. There have been some other discussions about how to reorganize this section, see discussion here, which was inconclusive but suggestive. Kingsindian (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

B'tselem's account does not appear to contradict what is mentioned in the many NPOV news sources cited in my edit (and there are more) that people willingly used themselves as human shields. (I don't see where B'tselem refers to that event as an 'inadvertent or careless airstrike' either.)

If you wish to separate 'civilian' volunteers from 'activist' volunteers, I have no problem with that (though I question the necessity). Re. the previous discussions on the talk pages: as far as I see, they only dealt with involuntary human shields. The issue of voluntary human shields was never raised in the talk pages nor mentioned in the article, which is why I added it. Spud770 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: B'Tselem's account is as follows: they got warning at 1:30 to evacuate, they evacuated. At 2:50, a missile was fired, hitting the solar water tank on the roof. People went up to investigate, then another missile hit at 3:00 while they were on the roof. The IDF claimed that it was too late to stop the second missile, (a claim B'Tselem rejected, but that is not relevant here). This is in no way an account of human shielding. The sources you quoted were all very close in time to the attack, when things were unclear and Israel was itself either not sure, or spinning this (take your pick based on your estimate of how nefarious they are). It is not fair to present this as uncontested fact, since this is obviously a loaded accusation. As to the voluntary human shielding by activists, that should be separated out clearly, since as far as I know, nobody has died. Kingsindian (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that there are many other issues with this supposed "human shielding". These are all discussed in an RfC on this. For example, homes are not considered military targets, a point the B'Tselem report also makes. So the claim of "human shielding" does not apply in many cases (including the Kaware case). These are all issues to be considered. Just because an ill-informed reporter calls it "human shielding" does not make it so. Reporters are not known to be international humanitarian law experts. Kingsindian (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Human shielding has a very specific legal definition. I believe that the first sentence in the "human shields" section ("Civilians and activists in Gaza have used themselves as 'human shields' in attempts to prevent Israeli attacks") should be altered or rephrased in some way. The term must be used with caution(similar to words like "torture" and "genocide). The ICRC defines it as "using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations". Stress the word "using". The ICRC concludes that "the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.". Civilians and activists putting themselves in harms way on their own accord is not human shielding unless their presence is being deliberately used by Hamas. It does not constitute a war crime if its not deliberate, and therefore can not be categorized as a form of human shielding.

If a group of civilians decide to voluntarily decide to stay near military as deterrents but Hamas has nothing to do with it then that cannot be defined as human shielding, and human rights organizations concur with me on this point.

Of course, if you disagree with my interpretation or you have separate reliable sources, such as judgements made by legal scholars, that groups of civilians voluntarily staying in combat zones constitutes "human shielding", feel free to bring it up. JDiala (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: You are correct in your assessment, in my view. However, I wonder if you have read the above discussion (quite long I know, not blaming you for tl;dr) in which I make the same points, and the reply by Spud770 was that "voluntary human shielding" (very bad term, in my view) should be included because of the section is called "civilian deaths". I do not accept this argument. Kingsindian (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Yes, I agree with you. I thought I'd just bring some sources in. The term "voluntary" human shielding has no relevance as a legal term; it's more of an emotive propaganda thing to portray Hamas as something its not. In my view, the term human shielding has two very different interpretations. One is the legal and scholarly interpretation. The other is the journalistic interpretation thrown around on the internet and media, often accompanied by the defamation of Hamas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it must abide by encyclopedic standards; therefore I believe the former interpretation is the one we should consistently abide by. That would mean the near-total removal of the term "human shield", "voluntary" or not, unless it's used in a secondary context (for example, "Israel claims Hamas is using human shields"), because the UN, human rights organizations and other reputable sources have failed to find conclusive evidence as of yet that Hamas has a policy of deliberately using human shields, which would, of course, be the legal definition and also constitute a war crime under IHR. JDiala (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: @Kingsindian: Apologies for the delayed response. A Google search of "voluntary human shields" will reveal several legal articles on this subject - this is not a propaganda term. While the status of voluntary human shields in international law is disputed, their existence is not. The news sources cited and many other articles make that clear. Spud770 (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: This is not good enough, I'm afraid. As I mentioned, the sources listed are only a reporter reporting Israeli claims or making an informal claim which carries little weight. And as I mentioned, there are serious doubts about the Kaware family. And one should keep in mind WP:BURDEN. It is not up to me to give legal sources directly addressing these incidents. The only legal source (B'Tselem) does not support it. The statement as it currently stands is not correct and should be removed, at least while we discuss this. I am not able to revert, because of 1RR restrictions in this area. Kingsindian (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

CNN, Newsweek, and Middle East Monitor sources are not reporting Israeli claims, they are simply stating the existence of voluntary human shields. Nothing in the B'tzelem account contradicts the media reports. Your objections sound like WP:IJDLI. If you have a reliable source that voluntary human shields have not been used in this conflict, by all means bring it. Otherwise the statement should stay. Spud770 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: Unfortunately, the discussion has gone nowhere, and you have neither listened to any of my arguments, nor removed the edit while we discussed, nor incorporated anything into the text which provides a contrary viewpoint to the bald statement that "civilians and activists used themselves as human shields". In these circumstances, I have no choice but to apply WP:WIKILAWYERING. Since I had reverted the edit in the beginning, per WP:STATUSQUO, you were wrong to reinstate it wholesale unless there is consensus. I ask that you remove it and find consensus, either by opening an RfC or some other method. Kingsindian (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferable. Spud770 is right on this issue. CNN, Newsweek, and Middle East Monitor are reliable sources. B'Tselem is an NGO and not legal source.--Tritomex (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Claims of blockade legality that are not in the source and other POV claims from BG sections

a) The Haaretz source nowhere claims that "most of international bodies" see the blockade as illegal, it cites few. So this is WP:OR

b) Flailed to address WP:NPOV as opposite views on legality, and there are many, are not mentioned [8]--Tritomex (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

c) Hamas mounted a counter-coup?

d) The US tried to undone results of elections--This is POV.--Tritomex (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: (a) and (b) The Haaretz source is not meant to establish that claim. See WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. The statement "most international bodies" see the blockade as illegal is a summary from the lead and body of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article. I have no idea who wrote the other page, but the page I mentioned is much more comprehensive. Almost nobody considers the entire blockade to be legal. There was just one UN report, the Palmer report, which found (only the naval) blockade to be legal. There are tons of reports on the other side which declare the naval blockade illegal. So the statement is a correct summary.

(c) and (d) These come from the Nathan Thrall reference and David Rose reference, as cited. Not sure what is POV there. Kingsindian (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This not simple calculation like the policy say you should find a source that explictly says that also this goes against the policy becouse it does advance a certain position.--Shrike (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is original research, as no source for such claim exists in any of this sources. There are opinions that see it as illegal and other that does not see it as illegal. However claiming that "most international institutions" are saying this, is done solely through self counting=original research. You used for example this source [9], an internationally recognized expert, Spelman E, 'The Legality of the Israeli Blockade of the Gaza Strip', for another claim. She finds the blockade legal. Many other similar views can be red from other experts [10] so self made calculations can not be used as a sources for controversial claims, reliable secondary sources are needed to back such counting.Tritomex (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Another term can be used then if "most international bodies" term is not acceptable. How about the UN, Red Cross and 50 Human rights orgs believe the blockade to be illegal?

In June 2012, a group of 50 international aid agencies, including the World Health Organization and Oxfam, called on Israel to lift its siege and blockade of Gaza, stating:

'For over five years in Gaza, more than 1.6 million people have been under blockade in violation of international law. More than half of these people are children. We the undersigned say with one voice: "end the blockade now."'[11][12]. GGranddad (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex and Shrike: I have added the Richard Falk reference about the "overwhelming consensus". Kingsindian (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't use source that doesn't even mention the topic of the article its WP:UNDUE and WP:OR in context of 2014 conflict.--Shrike (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: I do not understand your point. The reference is meant to establish illegality of blockade. It of course cannot refer to the 2014 conflict, since it was written before 2014. How else can I talk about the legality of the blockade without having a source which discusses it? Kingsindian (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:This is solely policy based argument. Richard Falk a) does not even mention "international institutions" and his view would not represent the view of majority of international institutions, anyway. Reliable secondary source which states that the majority of international institutions are saying that the maritime blockade is illegal under international law is needed. Otherwise, this is WP:OR. I have 10 sources claiming that the blockade is not illegal but its not upon me to conclude that this 10 sources are representing the majority f international institutions.--Tritomex (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already provided a source that 50 humanitarian orgs state that the blockade is illegal, as in against the law plus the UN and the Red Cross. You can use that one if you want to but please do not ask for one when obviously one has been presented to you Tritomex.Also, what are your 10 sources?Let's see them. GGranddad (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Aid agencies are not experts on international law, there are thousands of aid agencies around the world 50 or any number of aid agencies claim can not be translated into "majority of international institutions" without original research.Tritomex (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Red Cross are experts on International Law being as they deal with the Geneva convention plus Amnesty and others are also experts on International law. Face it,many orgs believe that the blockade is illegal, that is a fact. I am still waiting to see your 10 that believe it is not.GGranddad (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok so the Red Cross has such opinion. We do not discuss here what each of this agencies claimed. Here are dozens of legal experts that claims that the blockade is legal [[13]], although this is also unimportant. The only question is that there is no source to backup the claim that the "majority of international institutions" are saying that the blockade is illegal. We do not discuss the legality of the blockade, but the lack of source that states that the "majority of international institutions " claims that the blockade is illegal. There is no a single reliable secondary source saying this.Tritomex (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not count 10 in your link, I count none actually, they are all wording their replies very carefully and all are dodging the Geneva convention obviously, also I would not believe anything Alan Dervershits has to say, he has been turned over so many times by everyone.If you do not like the term majority of International institutions then that can be changed to hundreds of NGO's, the Red Cross, various UN agencies and uncle tom cobley and all think the blockade is illegal because they do actually think that.I think you are just being picky because of your political stance. The actual phrase that is there now is pretty much backed up by the sources.You really cannot change facts.GGranddad (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: You are looking at the wrong page. They are assessing the flotilla raid, not the blockade. I have asked you to look at the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article, which is much more comprehensive. If you have an alternative phrasing, which shows the disparity of the two viewpoints (as WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE) requires, please give it. I can use "most international law experts" instead of "most international institutions" if you prefer that. The Israeli argument that Gaza is a "hostile territory" is already presented. @GGranddad:: a bit less of WP:BATTLEGROUND please. To everyone: I would be happy with any phrase that reflects the "overwhelming consensus" as Falk puts it. I have not done any WP:OR. See WP:SS and WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. I obviously cannot list every single institution in the world here. Kingsindian (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As it was said do not one here talked about the blockade, and no links I have to copy&paste here this views.

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of International Law and Diplomacy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that under the law of armed conflict, which would be in effect given Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel and Israel's responses, Israel has "a right to prevent even neutrals from shipping arms to [Hamas]". Eric Posner, international law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, noting that the raid had "led to wild accusations of illegality", wrote that blockades are lawful during times of armed conflict (such as the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War), and that "war-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas". He compared Israel's blockade to the Union blockade by the Union against the Confederacy (a non-state) during the U.S. Civil War. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the legitimacy of that blockade.

Philip Roche, a partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with the London-headquartered international law firm Norton Rose, also said: "On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza, and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal." The basis for that is the law of blockade, derived from international law that was codified in the 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, and which was then updated in 1994 in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea--"a legally recognized document". He addressed the charge by Human Rights Watch that the blockade of a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against civilians, ostensibly violating Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention, by saying "This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanctions are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own."

International law Professor Ed Morgan of the University of Toronto, likewise, noting that it is clear that Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict, which has been noted by the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, wrote that a blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic. He pointed out that it is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter, and is similarly set forth in Article 539 of the Canadian Forces manual Counter-Insurgency Operations. He wrote:

Having announced its blockade, Israel had no obligation to take the ships’ crew at their word as to the nature of the cargo. The blockading party has the right to fashion the arrangements, including search at a nearby port, under which passage of humanitarian goods is permitted.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel has a right to know – they're at war with Hamas – has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. It's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping ... 3,000 rockets on my people.'"

Alan Dershowitz, professor of Law at Harvard Law School, wrote that the legality of blockades as a response to acts of war “is not subject to serious doubt.” He likened Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza to U.S. naval actions in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which the U.S. had deemed lawful though not part of an armed conflict. I will add more sources later More sources> New York Times UN report Gaza blockade legal [[14]] another view on UN report [[15]] The report takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza. “Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” the report says in its opening paragraphs. “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.” The Washington Post [[16]] in the article titled The world discovers the legality of the Gaza blockade says When Israel interdicted a Turkish flotilla seeking to break the Gaza blockade, many international law groups called the blockade illegal. The famous Goldstone Commission report of the year before had similar conclusions. On the other hand, the United Nations’ Palmer Commission Report concluded the blockade was legal. Tritomex (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So, to return to the topic, the question here is the source. There are many opinions about the legality of the blockade and the only way how we, as Wikipedia editors can claim, that the overwhelming majority or most of institutions, or legal experts are supporting one or another view is through reliable secondary sources. If Richard Falk is given weight on this subject, other opposite views should be mentioned as well. This is the essence of WP:RS. If there is a majority and minority opinion, both has to be mentioned. I am not sure what is the majority opinion especially as I have found that the UN report found the blockade legal under international law. More so, in this case we do not have even a source that claims anything similar to what has been written in the article. So in my opinion this is WP:OR--Tritomex (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You could try and add some sources that actually state the blockade is legal because none of your sources say that, they say a lot of things and skirt around the subject a fair bit but apart from that,not that convincing.Where as many orgs have come out and stated that the blockade is illegal and presented the law that it is illegal under and that is the Geneva convention, all your so called experts have all ignored the Geneva convention because they know that they cannot argue against it being as Israel is punishing the whole population of Gaza, which makes their blockade illegal.You have a few individual people, we have the UN, Red Cross,Amnesty,HRW and many many many more who state that the blockade is illegal.GGranddad (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tritomex I will repeat some of my points. Firstly, you have confuse the naval blockade with the total blockade, by looking at the wrong page. Secondly, for any position, you can find people supporting or opposing it. One does not need to present fringe viewpoints in a one sentence summary. Thirdly, who knew Joe Biden was an international law expert? Alan Dershowitz is not one either.

It is clear to me, however, that whatever arguments I give, you will not agree. I suggest you use the WP:DRN or some other mechanism. I will gladly give comments there. Kingsindian (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, they are maybe not experts on international law, but still I have just one basic question, as it is obvious that this question is disputed, Where is the source that the majority of world institutions are considering the blockade as illegal?--Tritomex (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I have already suggested that I can change it to the phrasing used by Falk, namely that there is an "overwhelming consensus" among "qualified international law experts". Any other phrasing, which reflects the disparity of viewpoints is also acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide me link to Falk claim, as I am not sure that we are speaking about same issue, and if you have any source regarding the disparity of viewpoints, I would be thankful.--Tritomex (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Source Quote: "In other words, the Palmer Report seems to seriously fault the manner in which the Israeli enforced the blockade, but unfortunately upheld the underlying legality of both the blockade and the right of enforcement. And that is the rub. Such a conclusion contradicted the earlier finding of a more expert panel established by the Human Rights Council, and also rejected the overwhelming consensus that had been expressed by qualified international law specialists on these core issues." Further down: "But to be satisfactory, the report had to interpret the legal issues in a reasonable and responsible manner. This meant, above all else, that the underlying blockade imposed more than four years ago on the 1.6 million Palestinians living in Gaza was unlawful, and should be immediately lifted." Kingsindian (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is evident that this source has nothing to do do with the claim in the text. This is Falk response to UN finding that the blockade is legal according to the intel law. You insist to include the response of Falk, but you are denying the UN official report to be included?--Tritomex (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I have already kept the Palmer report in the references. The Palmer report was not set up to examine matters of law. Even assuming it was, the Palmer report only ruled the naval blockade legal. Its findings were contradicted by a UNHRC report as well as an independent UN panel of five experts, led by Falk. As regards the overall blockade, the Red Cross, UNHRC, UN Goldstone report, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the panel of five I mentioned above, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (and many others, a long list) all consider it to be illegal. The phrasing "most consider it illegal" in a one sentence summary is appropriate here. I have already answered the rest of your points above. As I said already, it is clear to me that no arguments I give will convince you. I suggest you find other means of dispute resolution. Kingsindian (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Concerns about manipulation of Wikipedia - exposed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Media_coverage

"In Israel, according to Naomi Chazan, the Gaza war has sparked "an equally momentous conflagration at the heart of Israeli society": attempts to question government policy have been met with severe verbal and physical harassment, incidents of Arab-bashing occur daily, and 90% of internet posts on the war are racist or constitute incitement." --- This is a lie! The Times of Israel article cited says 45%, NOT 90!!!! Even an Iranian like me can see the blatant Electronic Intifada infiltration of Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.39.2 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The source says "many of these are recorded by the Coalition against Racism, which reports that fully 45% of the posts on the war are racist and an additional 45% constitute incitement". I'm guessing they just combined the 45 and 45 and got 90. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So this is WP:OR racism or (incitement) can not be categorized as same, added together in original research. Incitement can be directed against racist for example.Tritomex (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Naomy Hazan is not notable by name but as a representative of the 'New Israel' NGO. There should probably be an NGO section in the article since there's just so god-damn many of them (a gazzillibillion!) vying for attention and funding. I'm also not sure her political NGO can be used for statistics (read: mangled-up heuristics), but we've allowed so many others', so it requires a wider debate. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone want to change the clearly racist headline of this section? Racism is unwelcome on wikipedia, I believe.GGranddad (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a fan of such plastering titles, I went bold and changed it. No one, btw, uses a term 'paly' as a pejorative (there's plenty of other stuff that's used) -- but I figured, this change is better to focus on the "damning" concerns about NGO silliness (which is indeed a problem). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"the majority of whom were Palestinian civilians"

incorrect; source needed. are you at all aware that hamas activists run around in civilian cloths? when they are killed, most of them are simply tagged as civilians by the government - hamas themselfs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.81.109 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no argument (I hope) that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians. Percent of the civilians among them is disputed and may be bellow 50%, so I changed the statement to say that most of the casualties are Palestinians without referring to their militant vs civilian status here. WarKosign (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: The source you added says "mostly civilians", it doesn't says that they were mostly Palestinian civilians. Please add a source that actually backs up the claim you insist on making. WarKosign (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, according to this, if you apply a simple WP:CALC, percent of civilian palestinians is 49.53%, which is not a majority. WarKosign (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's either 49.53% or 50.9%, they give both 2200 and 2140 as number of casualties. Anyway, I suggest not going into the percent of civilians vs militants in the opening paragraph. WarKosign (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I added more links.GGranddad (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One of them actually says that the majority or the people killed in Gaza were Palestinian Civilians. The article speaks about people killed in general, including in Israel - so the source still doesn't back up the claim completely. I would rather keep the lead paragraph undisputable, without the need to present different viewpoints. The fact that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians can't be disputed. Percent of civilians can, especially as final numbers will arrive from the different organizations. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually two of them state that and they were.The percentage of civilians is only disputed by Israel. I see no need to remove well sourced factual information, the sources back up what has been written in the article.GGranddad (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Best I am aware, the statistics on age group casualty rates was not the work of Israel. Do you have a source saying otherwise? Here's one not presented by Israel: [17] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC) added BBC MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Then that makes them civilians. Regardless if whether or not they are politically associated with Hamas, so long as they don't engage in hostilities, they are considered civilians. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/03/qa-2014-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas; "...mere membership or affiliation with Hamas, which is a political entity with an armed component, is not a sufficient basis for determining an individual to be a lawful military target. Israel’s labeling of certain individuals as “terrorists” does not make them military targets as a matter of law, so attacks on such persons may be deliberate attacks on civilians or indiscriminate on the grounds that there was no military target, in violation of the laws of war." JDiala (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I added that statement. In the sidebar are statistics from five different organisations, four of which agree that the majority of Palestinian casualities have been civilians, and the fifth of which, the IDF, gives a ratio of civilians to militants of around 50% (and I don't think it would be controversial to note that they're likely to be biased). If you think the statistics in the sidebar are in dispute, despite the numerous sources there, then they should be addressed there; I merely amended the phrasing to reflect the statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if its better to mention the civilian issue in the first para or not. I'm sure anti-Israelis would love to present it as if ALL the deaths are peace negotiators... but, really, since that's disputed -- including whether or not a Hamas "politician" is considered a legitimate target or not (all due respect to supreme court judge NGO extraordinaire HRW). What do mainstream sources use? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to a serious institute's research: [18]. Based on their fact finding, which is a much more serious process than repeating the Hamas-Healthcare/Muqawama-Foreign-PR-department line and chanting "illegal!!!!", I'd be hard pressed to accept NGO vying for notability being pushed forward, even if there are a gazzilibillion of them. On point -- what do proper analysts have to say about the lists? OK. NGOs too, but gropu them together if they just repeat Muqawama-FPR numbers without looking into them. Sure reminds me of the Jenin "Massacre". Has anyone seen the short (10 min) movie The Truth - by Scandar Copti & Rabih Boukhary? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have asked you before to stop your WP:FORUMing. Kingsindian (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I don't appreciate scare tactics. Have you read that link? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources say and report that of the Palestinians killed, there were overwhelmingly civilians killed and that shouldn't be ignored just because Israel and a few others disputes it. The last view is also in the table and relevants parts but otherwise, the first thing should be accepted as a fact. With regards to the table, it's also weird that IDF's claims about militants killed are there but the ones by Hamas about Israelis killed have been removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM and AcidSnow: The majority view (based on reports of the Hamas controlled ministry of health) is that up to 80% of the casualties were civilians. There is also a minority view that up to 50% of the casualties where in fact militants. Both views are represented both in the infobox and in the casualties reports table. We could present both views in the first paragraph of the lead, or we could avoid the disputable topic and leave only short summary of indisputable information in the lead. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not only figures by the administration in Gaza and that something is disputed doesn't mean we won't report that majority of the killed were civilians, as then you give the other, in this case Israeli position, a much higher representation than it should have. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The “short summary of indisputable information” draws a false equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian deaths. Stating that “Hamas rockets and Israeli air strikes have left more than 2,000 dead” overlooks the highly pertinent point that the deaths have overwhelmingly been on one side. There is no dispute that ~95% of the deaths have been Palestinian or that ~90% of the Israeli deaths were military, and this should be reflected, at the very least. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, this is why I wrote "mostly Palestinians" and suggested to add ", many of them civilians". I believe there is no dispute that by far most of the casualties are Palestinian, only their civilian vs military status is disputed. Recently the total number of casualties increased while there was no Israeli claim of the number of dead militants, so there is no source to contradict the claim that most of the casualties are Palestinian civilians. Once/If there is such a claim, we can return to this dispute. WarKosign (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question the civilian percentages is done by much more than Israel. BBC and NYT both published research casting doubt on the Hamas numbers [19][20] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some questions but as I said, the vast majority reports that most Palestinians killed were civilians, and that is the point we should follow. If they stop believe that, then we can change it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So now WarKosign has removed that most were civilians. What we have now in the lead is that the percentage of how many were civilians is disputed, though the health ministry, UN and NGO's back it up. We are not even given an estimate anymore in the lead but just the total of Palestinian dead and that the number of civilians is disputed. The Israeli side's fatalities is given as a fact. This is a serious POV problem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the recent edits to the section. People were constantly adding more and more of the casualties information to the lead. It was agreed to keep the lead short and simple. Either you have all the different numbers or you have none. As long as it's something in between people will keep adding the missing critical bit. WarKosign (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The sorry state of the lead -- "I told you so"

Against my insistent warning, for weeks that the lead should only include the basics, and the rest should be in the background section, people have blatantly ignored consensus and started adding stuff to the lead. As I predicted, this has meant that there is a battle on to get as much of the "Background" section into the lead as possible. Do enjoy the task of trimming the lead again. Kingsindian (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think a link to the previous version might be helpful? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph is short and to the point. I think there are only two issues to consider changing:
1. Beginning with the IDF name of the operation - some people consider the name biased and POV, so perhaps the first sentence of the article shouldn't begin with it. Then perhaps we can move the hebrew name and the literal translation into the note about the reason for changing the name during the translation - they are all not of topmost importance.
2. The issue of palestinian civilians being or not being the majority of the casualties - there is a separate thread above on this subject. After these points are somehow agreed upon, we have several more paragraphs to clean.

Second paragraph - in my opinion should be merged into background, assuming there is some material not currently in background.

Third paragraph - continuation of the background (up to August 5th). Then there is a total number of rockets/air strikes etc by both sides - should be kept, and some events from the timeline - should be merged.

Forth paragraphs - casualties and human shields, repetition of into elsewhere in the article.

Last paragraph - duplication of the info from "impact on residents".

In short, I think that after the first paragraph all we need is a short summary of major military events, and then details of the ceasefire.

WarKosign (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's much better now after a couple of edits by me and some refinement by -sche. This is the current state:

• First paragraph - start time, IDF name of the operation, stated goals, total number of casualties with link to casualties section, claim of Palestinian civilians percent.
• Second paragraph - short background, summary of military actions and ceasefire efforts

I suggest removing the background from the lead altogether, or more and more background will creep in as people deem this and that item critical to be mentioned as well. Summary of military actions - the numbers will probably be updated, but I think the structure is short and relevant enough. Details of failed ceasefire - I think all we need is a single sentence saying there were several failed attempts, linking to diplomatic efforts with the details

• Third paragraph - summary of casualties and impact on residents.

I removed the casualties from the lead intending to remove detailed impact on residents as well and replace it with a link to the appropriate paragraph. -sche reasoned in the summary (and I agree with this reasoning) that it makes no sense to have relatively detailed impact without the casualties. However, I suggest to remove both from the lead and leave a single sentence linking to the detailed paragraphs. WarKosign (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to your persistent and IMO mostly correct relocation of non-vital content from the lead to the body, and my efforts in the same vein, the lead is in much better shape. I even thought about removing the "lead too long" cleanup template someone added a while ago, but I'll wait for others' input on that idea first. I do find it amusing that the article is tagged both {{Inadequate lead}} ''and'' {{lead too long}}; that seems contradictory. The former template highlights that some of the background and a basic summary of the conflict's effects should stay — in particular, IMO, the number of people killed and the amount of infrastructure destroyed should stay. (I could see removing the details on how many people were displaced, needed food aid, and took shelter in UN schools, though.) -sche (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I agree that the lede is much improved. I have removed the contradictory tags. I hope this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is much better than before. I have made some further changes in the lead.

• Changed the France24 phrasing to include the ground invasion.
• Moved all of the background together.
• Added the non-Hamas factions before July 6. Added a BBC reference.
• Removed the airstrike "on home..." on July 6, that is incorrect, it was not an airstrike on a home. It was a on a tunnel.
• Changed "seven people" to "seven Hamas militants"
• Added the date of the ground invasion, and shortened the line by wikilinking to the Palestinian tunnel warfare page.

The lead now has a good structure. 1st para: basics and casualties. 2nd para: background. 3rd para: strikes by both sides and ceasefires. 4th para: damages on both sides. Kingsindian (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see most of the changes you wrote you did.Feel free to change the title of this section on the talk page to match the state of the lead. WarKosign (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have linked to this section in my edit summary, which will be broken if the title is changed. Also, it is best to keep this title as a reminder of what happenned (twice). Kingsindian (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: re "What happenned to the figures from the other side?": it looks like you accidentally removed them yourself in diff. I restored them and also added dates to the other statements of how many attacks had occurred. -sche (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks, regarding the other changes. The Times of Israel source is quoting the IDF. "In the course of the 50 days of the Israel-Hamas conflict, Hamas has fired 4,450 rockets and other projectiles at Israel, the army says." Kingsindian (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, how did I miss that? Clearly I need to drink some more coffee before I continue editing... -sche (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to trim a bit more background out of the second paragraph, leaving only the "most immediate" items, viz. the beginning of the rocket fire by non-Hamas factions, the airstrike on Khan Yunis and the beginning of the rocket fire by Hamas. Diff. Let me know what you think; I am happy to undo that edit if it is not seen as an improvement. But if the edit is undone, redo the small typofix of "on Hamas on the West Bank"→"on Hamas in the West Bank" that was part of it. -sche (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Beit Hanoun photo

@WarKosign: Regarding your edit. WP:NPOV does not mean a mechanical application of "one for this side and one for that". Given the different impacts on the two sides, it is hardly WP:UNDUE to have three photos on the Palestinian side vs two on the Israeli side. The Beit Hanoun photo is meant to illustrate the statement in the section "Beit Hanoun, with 70% of its housing stock damaged, is considered uninhabitable, with 30,000 residents there in need of accommodation." If you are concerned that there are two photos of Beit Hanoun, I suggest that two photos from the "Timeline" section be removed. There are too many photos there anyway. Lastly, please be careful about WP:1RR, though your earlier revert was arguably reverting vandalism.Kingsindian (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Removal of the old Beit Hanoun photo was not a revert since it was not the same photo you added. They are very similar so I don't see point to have two similar images of the same subject near each other. For timeline ideally we need images of both sides in action - there is plenty of photos of IDF soldiers, but probably no photos of Hamas militants firing rockets from their typical sites. WarKosign (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: As I said, if you want to remove a photo, remove the one in the timeline section. (Remove two actually, so that there is no implication of favouring one side). The photo in the impacts section is directly illustrating a statement about the Beit Hanoun housing stock. By the way, I added the old Beit Hanoun photo as well. Kingsindian (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas claims of Israeli soldiers killed? Really?

Is Wikipedia a joke now? For real? "Hamas: 1000 soldiers killed"? Are you fucking kidding me?

I hereby claim that in fact, 1 billion Israeli children were killed by Hamas during the operation. I demand that you'll add my claim to the list of casualties. It's only fair. --Anony 09:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't "demand" around here, we consider things by consensus. And log in, for God's sake, you anons! HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't chose side. Why include Israel's claim but not Hamas claim? --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Even with all the relativism popular nowadays Wikipedia still has some guidelines for reliable sources. ¤ ehudshapira 13:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This war is between HAMAS and the IDF , if you dont include HAMAS claims then this article is out of balance, If you want you can change the titlw of the article to The Israeli narrative of The 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid almasri (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of date information

The following line in the Casualties (Israeli) section should be removed, it is sourced from the 10th July and clearly out of date:

"According to Magen David Adom there have been injuries to 123 people: 1 seriously, 21 moderately to lightly and 101 from shock."

86.134.51.147 (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A number of sources are claiming the conflict has ended.

Here, here, here, here, etc. Should we officially make today, yesterday, or the day before the official end of the conflict? Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Wait and see. Hamas has broken all the cease-fires to date. Things need to be quiet for more than 48-72 hours. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas began firing rockets on June 29 or June 30

See Reuters from that date. It was not a response to the killing of 6 Hamas members on July 6. For the record, Israel holds Hamas responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza, and warned Hamas on July 4 that "Israel would only be able to sustain militant rocket fire for another 24, or maximum 48, hours before undertaking a major military offensive." Even if Hamas denies this, it is striking how Wikipedia parrots the official Hamas propaganda line.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you see a lot of editors who just write something in order to fill space, if they're parroting the homesite, then it's likely in an attempt to be as true to the material as they can. I went to the article that you posted and felt it necessary to point out that a lot of the Wikipedia articles, while, of course, of similar content, it doesn't seem to me that it's being copied. Parroted, sure but not copied. Something I'd like to bring up, however, is that you see most of the articles being produced from Reuters. Almost every story has their label on it. This is a larger problem as I see it, and we ought to try to move our focus to expanding where we find our information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article has to changed accordingly.--Shrike (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What Netanyahu says and that he holds Hamas accountable doesn't mean it was Hamas who shot. So the lead is correct now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You could read the article before commenting: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas on Monday of involvement, for the first time since a Gaza war in 2012, in rocket attacks on Israel and threatened to step up military action to stop the strikes...Israeli officials had acknowledged that Hamas had held its rocket fire during a series of flare-ups since the brief war ended, and they blamed such attacks on other militant movements while demanding the ruling Islamist group rein them in."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are other sources reporting from that date, prior to the creation of the propaganda line:

• "Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state."
• "For the first time since the end of the IDF Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012, the Hamas military wing is behind rocket strikes on Israel, with a wave of attacks overnight Sunday (June 29) and early Monday emanating from central Gaza refugee camps completely under Hamas control. There a number of Palestinian factions active in Gaza and though Israel views Hamas as responsible for any rockets fired from the Gaza territory, the group generally avoids such direct attacks on Israel. In the past 24 hours, however, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades have been launching rockets from the Dir al Balach, Bureij and Muasi refugee camps...Monday's rockets were of an older make known to be in the Hamas arsenal...The IDF said Mohammed Zaid Abid was killed after the army launched a targeted attack against his rocket launching cell minutes before they planned to fire at Israel. Abid was identified by Palestinian media as a member of the Hamas military wing."

Here's a more recent source:

• "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over. Israel was forced to retaliate for the rockets with air raids."

Note that even the 972 Magazine article debated earlier lists June 30 as the date, and that Hamas was attempting to directly fire rockets into Israel even prior to June 30, as the news reports all mention a failed attack the day before, in which the Hamas rocket squad was taken out by an Israeli airstrike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Please see the section Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6 where all the evidence about rocket fire is presented. All serious analysts use July 6 as the date when Hamas started rocket fire. JJ Goldberg is indeed an exception in this regard, as I noted there. The 972mag source you give makes no such claim, only reporting the statement of Netanyahu in Reuters.

• As to the reports you mention, most of them are news reports quoting the IDF. For example the first one, by Reuters says "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas on Monday of involvement, for the first time since a Gaza war in 2012, in rocket attacks on Israel and threatened to step up military action to stop the strikes." and "No group has claimed responsibility for Monday's rockets...". The rest are in this vein.
• As to the statement that Israel says holds Hamas responsible for all rockets, that may be true or not. But that does not change the facts on who fired rockets. The lead is just stating the basic facts per WP:SS. Kingsindian (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when are blogs, the London Review of Books (cited three times), or The American Conservative more "serious" than the news reports I quoted? (Most of the sources you posted above were merely quoting each other; you are using "serious" as a synonym for "anti-Israel".) For the record, as The New Republic source makes clear, July 6 was when "Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel". Just because Hamas did not claim responsibility prior to that date does not mean they were not firing, or that Israel was not actively taking out Hamas rocket squads. Who debunked earlier reports of rocket fire by Hamas? What new evidence emerged on July 6? Absolutely nothing, just the official Hamas admission, which should carry no more weight than what you dismiss as "IDF claims". Why does this article only describe the official Hamas propaganda line as fact, without even mentioning the Israeli narrative? Is it because the more "serious analysts" have persuasive evidence, not yet publicly available, showing that Hamas was telling the truth and Israel was lying?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I read and again, the article doesn't refute the claim at all but speaks about Netanyahu's position. The evidence is clear as Kingsindian refers too. --IRISZOOM (talk)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: To your points: London Review of Books is not a blog, it is eminently RS. There are two authors quoted from there, Nathan Thrall and Mouin Rabbani, both associated (Thrall currently, Rabbani formerly) with the International Crisis Group a totally respectable middle of the road group. One of the other references is from David C. Hendrickson, an international relations expert writing in The National Interest, a journal founded by Irving Kristol (I hope that counts as mainstream and respectable). I do not see the issue with New Republic source, it seems to support the lead precisely. As to the news reports, they all report the Netanyahu claim, without saying anything about whether it's true or not (as news reports frequently do, they report what is said). Kingsindian (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I said you cited blogs, not that The London Review of Books or The American Conservative are blogs. Your sources report a Hamas official statement. My sources report Israeli official statements. You have no policy-based rationale for only mentioning the former as undisputed fact while totally omitting the latter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I misread the blog part, sorry. As to the rest, these analysts are not "reporting Hamas official statement", but their own analysis. I have already responded to the rest of the points. Kingsindian (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This quibble is odd. I noticed it only now. There is nothing wrong with the text as it is or was.If anything the Netanyahu claim is accompanied by text that says Hamas had not broken its agreement since Nov.2012, 'involvement' means not holding to the terms of its agreement in November 2012 to police groups firing rockets. As to the period preceding this, Israel and Palestinian militant groups struck each other constantly throughout June, Israel continued its policy of assassinating militants by missile strikes. Hamas was not held responsible for the missiles, which were charged to the Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this help matters or not? (I am happy to undo that edit if it is not seen as an improvement.) -sche (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: The edit is ambiguous. It can mean Hamas retroactively took responsibility for the past rockets, which is not correct. Kingsindian ([[User

talk:Kingsindian|talk]]) 18:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

-sche. There are so many bad editors pushing a POV without looking at what the effect is here )that the text you tried to emend was not good. Your own edit screwed it up further, no doubt inadvertently. All of this hinges on Thrall. See below. I might add that this article has managed to avoid the unilateral Israelocentric POV drafting that characterizes throughout the sister Timeline article, which has made no pretentions to present both sides, but seems to be drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd that that's the language used in the sources. I have no idea if Nishidani's convoluted rhetoric is an attempt to deny that the Israeli claims linked to above exist, but in any case I will let the sources speak for themselves when I edit this article accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you're planning to do, but it was decided many times that the lead must be kept basic and short per WP:SS and WP:LEAD. Any details can be included in the background section. There is no "Israeli claim" and "Hamas claim" here. The sources are all neutral. So far people seem to be fine with the current version. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thrall is an overview by an analyst, and until more such papers come in, we should be using synthetic overviews by specialists rather than individual articles which are then used, per WP:OR as TheTimesAreAChanging appears to want to do, to overturn what the specialist sources say. Most of the Israeli sources are giving IDF paraphrases or dropping Shin Bet hints. Let's look at it.

• Throughout June Israel and non-Hamas factions exchanged airstrikes and rocket fire.
• (Israel did not observe the ceasfire terms, nor did non-Hamas groups)
• Until the 30th Israel made no claims Hamas was behind rocketry. No one doubts Israel was continuously striking the Gaza Strip as no one doubts non-Hamas activists were firing mortars and rockets over the border. There was a conflict in which the ruling Gaza Authority was recognized by Israel as not being involved.
• On the 30th Netanyahu claimed Hamas was involved. The sources say he said this after the IAF struck and killed a Hamas operative who, according to the IDF/political view, was ‘planning to attack Israel with a rocketry/ mortars’. Hamas protested saying the man was at a monitoring point on the border (we no nothing of the truths on the ground here)

(Firing by Israel and non-Hamas groups continued after that)

On the 6th for the second time Israel struck Hamas, this time killing 7 militants.

Re the 6-7th, Nathan Thrall writes:

When the rocket fire increased, they(Hamas) found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge.

As said repeatedly in the past, as as repeatedly editors pushing a POV have tried to get round, this statement is ambiguous, and can only be reliably reported by quoting with attribution.

'The day after 7 Hamas militants were killed in an IAF airstrike, Hamas began to assume responsibility for rockets fired at Israel, and Israel then launched Operation Protective Edge.'

The essence of Thrall's point is on the 7th., after taking casualties of its own, Hamas took responsibility for all rockets, abolishing the distinction it, and Netanyahu drew, between Hamas, the governing authority, and the wildcard militants, the former till the 7th July, the latter until the Ist July (though equivocally. Netanyahu's words can be read as saying Hamas which had managed to 'suppress' rocketry since Nov.2012 was not doing so any more, or was present, or actively allowing rockets to be fired in protest against Israel's violent actions on the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian says that only Goldberg qualifies as a credible source, but he is a credible source, and the question is really a red herring: No-one has debunked the Israeli claims, and even if Israel was almost universally believed to be lying it would still be POV to simply omit their rationale from the narrative altogether. A news report is more than sufficient for an Israeli claim, if secondary analysts like Goldberg repeat it later all the better. The notability is established because it is a claim by an interested party, just like Hamas' July 7 statement. There may be ambiguity about whether or not Hamas had attempted to fire rockets prior to June 30 or the degree of Hamas responsibility for rocket fire from other groups, but Israel unambiguously stated that Hamas directly fired rockets on June 30 and the conflicting dates from the respective interested parties should both be presented.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are problematic in several ways. You remove that an Israeli airstrike killed seven Hamas member and the quote associated with it. And as noted by Nishidani, the claim is not made by Israel or Hamas here but neutral parties. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the SPI against you has no merit and that I should respond even to sockpuppets, where do you draw the line? Israel says Hamas stopped enforcing the ceasefire well before then, causing a huge spike in rocket attacks, and that Hamas was directly firing the previous week. Hamas says the rocket fire on June 30, if they did it, was a response to the killing of a Hamas member the previous day, who Israel in turn says was moments away from launching an attack. If we mention the July 6 airstrike, should we also mention Israel's warning on July 4 that continued rocket fire would necessitate a strong response within the next 48 hours? My edit was the most bare-bones, just-the-facts summary I could think of.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit made by TheTimesAreAChanging is not acceptable. As already stated multiple times, there is no "Israeli claim" and "Hamas claim". The statement is made by neutral third parties. There are two references cited there, Nathan Thrall, which Nishidani notes is slightly ambiguous, and the BBC which is not ambiguous. I have already mentioned in a separate section all the other commentary by analysts other than Thrall, almost all of them (except Goldberg) date the Hamas rocket fire after July 6. I did not say anything which implied that only Goldberg is a credible source. I said that the weight of the evidence is against the assertion that Hamas rocket fire began on June 30. If one wants to quote the Thrall statement with attribution, it is fine with me. But none of this stuff will do. Kingsindian (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What you want to believe and respond to is up to you.

This is about when Hamas launched rockets. That seven were killed on that day when they began firing them according to those sources is relevant. That Israel warned Hamas before has no relevance to the argument that the killing of Hamas members preceded their rocket attacks. And you are not adressing the second point, which is that the claim is not made by Israel or Hamas but by neutral parties. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

.TheTimesAreAChanging. You are editing against the results of past discussions, using WP:OR and overriding both sources and several editors to get your point over. Contentious articles can't get to minimal levels of quality with this approach.

to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions had begun following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank (sparked by the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by Hamas members),[28] and which Hamas itself began on either June 30 (according to Israel) or July 7 (according to Hamas).[

This result is totally, utterly inept. And it is inept because whoever helps or assists this kind of pathetic prose is writing not according to sources but rather in order to make some point, or dole out the kind of responsibility he or she wishes to pin on a side. It is WP:OR also.

the subject of 'and which Hamas itself began' is rocket fire from Gaza.

'Israel' on June 30 must mean an official statement. Netanyahu's single claim that Hamas was 'involved' or that the obscure incident in which one Hamas member died constitutes the 'beginning' of Hamas firing (where are the claims that Hamas was firing rockets on 1,2,3,4,5,6th of June, in a press allusion does not permit editors to translate this into a statement of the kind 'according to Israel'.

Secondly, the 7th is not 'according to Hamas' (a pseudo-balancing statement): it was 'according to several sources' who are not enrolled in the IDF or Hamas. Making deductions (WP:OR)from POV-spinning breaking news media to disrupt what independent analysts state as the sequence is not how things are done here (and those serious analyses can of course change over time). (The same crap happened on the Al-Aqsa Intifada page where battles were fought to try and get over the idea that the death of 1 Israeli soldier before that incident blew up was part of the cause of the uprising. It wasn't at the time, nor in history books later, taken seriously apart from one mention by Anthony Cordesman, who always recycles without checking IDF press handouts).

And what is 'thereafter' doing there?

We had a fairly carefully crafted introduction and now we have a mess.

I suggest the text be reverted to the earlier version.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Israel in Lede

In the lede, the following sentence is - I believe - problematic: "The IDF has stated that "Hamas chooses where these battles are conducted and, despite Israel’s best efforts to prevent civilian casualties, Hamas is ultimately responsible for the tragic loss of civilian life. Specifically in the case of UN facilities, it is important to note the repeated abuse of UN facilities by Hamas, namely with at least three cases of munitions storage within such facilities." This is a two-sided conflict and to include an editorial statement by one of the belligerents in that conflict in the lede is startlingly NPOV. Either this should be balanced by a statement from the other belligerent (the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades or Hamas), or it should be omitted entirely. DocumentError (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no such statement in the lead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha - thanks, I left this in the wrong entry (I had two different tabs open). With your permission, I'll delete this entire thread to avoid confusion. DocumentError (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The conflict has ended

Since the conflict has ended/stopped (no fight since August 26th), I think it would be appropriate to change the date of the conflict in the infobox from the current "July 8 2014 - present" to "July 8 2014 - August 26 2014". 69.196.168.233 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox

Should or shouldn't Hamas claims of soldiers killed be included in the infobox? There are two versions which keep getting added and deleted.

• Newer version: HAMAS: 1000 soldier killed, 2000 soldier wounded
• An older version: Hamas:161 soldiers killed

References

Please indicate: Yes or No. If Yes, indicate which version you prefer.

• Comment I have no feeling one way or another. But pinging Zaid almasri since he keeps adding it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• No. The sources are crap, and silly propaganda claims have no place in an infobox, as opposed to a disinfobox.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes The second one. Anadolu Agency is an acceptable source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No one here is disputing it is Hamas' claim, WarKosign, so I don't understand your point. It is therefore it is written: "Hamas: 161 soldiers killed", just as we have IDF's claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• No Hamas making the claim of 1000 proves that 161 isn't true. 1000 is too round to be anything but made up. Even if Anadolu Agency is an acceptable source as IRISZOOM says, it only writes that Hamas made this claim, they do not say it is correct. The claim belongs with the rest of the lies at the the media sub-page's special section. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Yes The first one (1,000 KIA). While it's a round number it is not unusual for belligerents in a conflict to release estimates of the enemy's casualties, not unlike the IDF also claiming "1,000 militants." DocumentError (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes Hamas claim of 1000 soldier dead should be used since it is the newest and the 161 figure is outdated. both IDF and HAMAS claims of how much they killed from the other side are estimates and of course both of them are inflated and ridiculous , but since it is attributed to them and not stated as a fact but rather as a claim it must be included and i will include it no matter what others do even if i keep adding it daily for one year , i have a very long breath.

If you dont want HAMAS claims so change the title to THE ISRAELI NARRATIVE OF THE 2014 ISRAEL-GAZA CONFLICT. HAMAS is one of the only two sides of the conflict so not including its claims make the articl out of balance and whatever you feel about them or about palestinians is irrelevant, Imagine if HAMAS were at a justice court wouldnt the judge hear their claims or would he say : listen terrorists i will not hear from you and i will sentence you to so and so

IRISZOOM ANADOLU is the same source for both claims but the 161 is old and this one is newer check this http://www.aa.com.tr/ar/s/379950 https://twitter.com/aa_arabic/status/504659476260331520

I like the fact that you discribed the agency as an accepted source i guess if you knew that the 1000 figure is also from them you would have changed your mind HaHa.

.Zaid almasri (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Images in the article

I would like to clean up the images through the article.

• Infobox - there were two images, now there is a collage, which is simply 4 pre-existing images mashed together. Can someone think of a kind of a single image that could represent the conflict ? If not, the minimum number is 2, one per side. Do we really need all 4 in the collage ? If the answer is yes, They should be images not used elsewhere in the article.
• Background - background talks mostly about the violation of the previous ceasefire. On one side there is the blockade of gaza, with the map that represents it (own work, based on OCHA reports). There is no image representing rocket fire from Gaza during this time in this section. Perhaps some image of rocket shards or damaged houses ? I'm sure there are IDF-released images, is there a more neutral source ?
• Immediate events - seems ok, 2 images of events during Operation Brother's keeper
• Operation timeline - 2 images from each side. There are 2 maps of Gaza: one of launch sides (by IDF) and one of attacked locations in Gaza. On one hand it makes sense to have two maps near each other. On the other hand I think the map of launch sides belongs in the alleged human shields, "use of civilian infrastructures". If it's agreed that I move it there I will put another image of damage in Israel instead.
• Impact on residents - 3 images for Gaza vs 2 for Israel, 1 of the 3 is another map of damaged sites in Gaza. I suggest moving this map up instead the one in the timeline since it shows the whole Gaza strip and not only a part of it.

Image of the wounded girl's caption is very long - is her story notable ? Is it important that she was injured in her uncle's house? The fact that Israel is treating her in Jerusalem is somewhat notable, but I don't think it belongs in the caption.

• Reactions - ok, 2 equivalent pictures, same order as the text
• Alleged violations - at the moment only one violation has an image, destruction of homes has a picture of people standing under an excavator, with the caption saying they are retrieving the dead during a ceasefire. Do we want a single image for each violations ? If not, how do we pick which ones get images ? I can think of the following images for violations

• Civilian deaths - plenty of images of the dead or the wounded. How graphical and explicit should it be ?

• Warning prior to the attacks - there probably exist be IDF-released images of the papers that IDF dropped on Gaza before attacks.

• Destruction of homes - sure there are destroyed and damaged houses. Best find one that can be proved to be destroyed intentionally and not as collateral damage while attacking something else.
• Shelling of UNWRA schools - there was an image of an UNWRA school as it was used for shelter. Perhaps there is an image of the holes that are "consistent with shelling" ?
• Infrastructure - is there anything related to infrastructure ? A line of people waiting to receive water rations ?
• Attack on journalists - don't think there is anything to show
• Human shields by Israel - there is a single alleged case, with an image of the note that he supposedly wrote while in IDF's prison. Probably not in public domain.
• Killing of collaborators - there are images in the news of militants aiming at hooded people, probably not public domain
• Use of civilian structures for military purposes - the rocket launch site map from above
• Medical facilities and personnel - the ruined ambulance from the collage. We can't know if it was used for military purposes and its caption does not make any claim. The section says that it is illegal to attack an ambulance unless it's used for military purposes, so I think the image demonstrates both cases.
• Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes - there is an image of people sanding on the roof that IDF released.
• Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians - something that displays the damages, again ? I think this and destruction of homes above can be skipped.
• Militant use of UN facilities - don't think there are public domain images at the moment. If UN or IDF releases something we make consider it. Hamas will surely not release anything of the kind.
• Intimidation of journalists - ditto

• Military weaponry and techniques - seems ok to me: 3 images, one of rocket ranges (gaza) one of a howitzer (IDF) one of a soldier looking on a tunnel (both)

Please respond to my consideration, if there is agreement or apathy I will being cleaning it up. WarKosign (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Re the infobox images: I thought the two images that were there before were sufficient, and better because they didn't duplicate images which were (and belonged) elsewhere in the article, so no complaints from me if you switch it back from 4 to 2.

It's redundant to have both File:Israeli Strikes on North Gaza.jpg and File:Unosat-gaza.png in the article, and File:Israeli Strikes on North Gaza.jpg is a better map than File:Unosat-gaza.png (the former shows more of the territory of Gaza, the latter only shows less and is frankly harder to look over and make sense of). I would replace File:Unosat-gaza.png with File:Israeli Strikes on North Gaza.jpg. I think this is something you are proposing to do, along with moving the other map (the Israeli map of launch sites in Gaza)?

Would it be useful to have an image gallery (probably at the bottom of the article)? A lot of the images that have been removed from the article over the past few weeks have been removed with edit summaries indicating desire for numerical equality of "Israeli pictures" and "Palestinian pictures", rather than disagreement with the relevance or helpfulness of the images. A gallery would seem well-suited to showing things like how geographically spread-out the damage to Israeli infrastructure was and how severe the damage to Gazan infrastructure was, and could possibly also contain pictures of various Gazan and Israeli weapons (or possibly the gallery of that could go in the 'military weaponry' section). -sche (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose all changes DocumentError (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Points:

• In the infobox: there should be 2 images, as before. I don't know who changed it to 4. They're not representative either. 2 of them are in Israel, one is an Israeli weapon, and one is in Gaza.
• The background section:agree that there can be a picture about rocket attacks. There can be pictures of truce violations by either side. The closure picture is a separate background. I don't know of any free chart/picture describing truce violations.
• The UNOSAT image is describing the damage in Khuzaa area, which was one of the major areas of conflict. It is a large picture, so the thumbnail is hard to see. But it can be seen quite well by clicking on the image. The inset on the top-left shows a zoomed in version. I also plan to add one of Shujaiyya, also another major conflict area.
• The disparity of 3 vs 2 in the impact section is already discussed elsewhere. As I noted, NPOV does not imply that there be same number of images everywhere. Given the differing impact on the two sides, it is not at all undue to have 3 images for the Palestinian side. The 3 images all are illustrating important things mentioned in the text. The UN image is obviously relevant. The Beit Hanoun picture is illustrating the statement that 70% of the housing stock is gone and it is uninhabitable. The third picture is about number of children affected, the subject of the last paragraph. I can put up a different picture for that if needed, and move the picture of Shayma to the casualties section.
• Agree that the caption of the picture of Shayma is too long. Someone added that she was being treated in Israel for some reason. She is being treated in East Jerusalem. And I agree that wherever she is treated is irrelevant. Kingsindian (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• I do not support putting the IDF map of rocket launch sites in the "use of civilian structures for military purposes" section. Firstly, it is one-sided. Secondly, it does not say anything about all the launches being from near civilian structures. Kingsindian (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fatah claims that Hamas committed crimes against them

Should this be added to the alleged violations by Hamas? The claims are:

"It said that Hamas “militias shot and beat dozens of Fatah members, some of whom were transferred for medical treatment in Ramallah, Hebron and Nablus.

The statement said that Hamas also placed more than 300 Fatah members under house arrest, exposing them to Israeli air strikes.

Other Fatah members were kept in Hamas prisons during the war, which also endangered their lives, the statement said.

Fatah also accused Hamas of confiscating food and medicine sent to the Gaza Strip from the West bank and other countries. It said that Hamas distributed the aid among its men in mosques and sold some of it in the black market." Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The title of this article being "Israel-Gaza conflict," and Fatah not being an active belligerent in said conflict, it has no place here. This would be fine for an article on the dispute between Hamas and Fatah, though. DocumentError (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What does Fatah not being an "active belligerent" have to do with anything? Journalists are in the article. Are they active belligerents? Just because Fatah isn't fighting doesn't mean Hamas beating up and shooting Fatah members isn't considered a crime. According to Fatah, putting Fatah members under house arrest in areas that Hamas knows will be hit with Israeli airstrikes is effectively making them human shields. Putting Fatah members in prison for no reason would be a violation of international law. I'm not entirely sure if taking medicine and supplies meant for civilians and giving them to Hamas is considered a violation of international law, but it wouldn't be the first time Hamas has done that. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The title of this article is "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict," not "Hamas are Villains - Here's Proof" Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This part of the article is called "Talk" not "Put words in people's mouths". If you can't provide any reason for why you think it shouldn't be added, then please don't spam this talk. Thanks. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to reasons previously stated, the Jerusalem Post is the only outlet reporting this alleged statement and the homepage of the Fatah movement currently contains nothing along the lines of the alleged statement. Given the implications of this assertion, multiple RS would be necessary before inclusion were even considered. DocumentError (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-of-fatah-members-under-hamas-house-arrest-in-gaza/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/fatah-activists-gaza-hamas-house-arrest-25018750

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/08/22/palestinian-authority-says-hamas-arrested-nearly-300-fatah-activists/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.611150 Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

These sources are from a week (and more) prior to the date of the J-Post article in your OP and contain allegations much more tame (and different) than those contained in the J-Post article in your OP. I'm unclear if they're referring to the same statement or two different statements. Let's table this for now and revisit it in a year after the fog of war has lifted. DocumentError (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the other sources provide a more detailed and graphic account. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your OP source (the J-Post) says the statement was issued "Saturday night" and the date of the article is 8/30. Your other sources refer to a statement being made with article dates of 8/18 and 8/22. Obviously these are different statements from the one you mentioned in your OP. Perhaps you'd like to take another run at this? DocumentError (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Those incidents were part of the conflict and should be included in the article.--Shrike (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The incidents or the statements about the incidents? And, if the latter, which statements? The ones Knightmare72589 references in his OP (and which are only attributed to the J Post) or the ones Knightmare72589 subsequently references and reference a different issue entirely? This is too confusing to decipher. We can wait a year and revisit this one. DocumentError (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians - proposed new section

I've seen about 50 interviews with Palestinians in Gaza and all of them basically said the same thing: 'we support fighting Israel.' This should be placed in the article as the majority view (I'm sure there's mention that Israelis wanted to wipe Hamas off the map).

Here's one source (Others should possibly be added here before we start writing this into the article): "האזרחים העזתים תומכים באופן מלא בזרוע הצבאית של החמאס ובמאבקה נגד ישראל. ... אני מבטיח לך שגם אנשי שמאל בעזה תומכים בעז א־דין אל־קסאם" -- [21] Translation: "The civilians in Gaza fully support Hamas military wing and its fight against Israel ... I promise you that left-wing people in Gaza support the Az A-Din al-Qassam"

-- MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The section title is blatant POV pushing. 'English people in WW2 were unanimous in supporting attacks on German people' is how it translates: you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic what is a natural national consensus to defend oneself against what is perceived as a hostile occupying power. So? Most people are patriotic. 94% of Israelis support the IDF, most Gazans support Hamas. Secondly all that information is in English sources. One doesn't document the obvious, and the page already has too many editors trying egregiously to make wikipedia a forum for one POV. Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)